Leighton Smith Podcast #319 - March 11th 2026 - Robert MacCulloch

The recent announcement by the Reserve Bank focused on the availability of cash and ATM’s, and commercial bank branches.

The Reserve Bank is currently seeking feedback on these possible changes from the public.

Professor Robert MacCulloch, (who once worked at the Reserve Bank), is forthright in his commentary.

His thoughts on cash, CBDC’s, and privacy versus government control are invaluable.

As are your thoughts in The Mailroom with Mrs Producer.

File your comments and complaints at [e-mail] OR [e-mail]

Haven't listened to a podcast before? Check out our simple how-to guide.

Listen here on iHeartRadio

Leighton Smith's podcast also available on iTunes:
To subscribe via iTunes click here

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from news Talks B. Follow
this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates of the now the Leyton
Smith podcast powered by news talks it B.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome to podcasts three to one nine for March eleven,
twenty twenty six. The recent announcement by the Reserve Bank
that was focused on money, specifically cash and EIGHTMS and
commercial bank branches has caused some interesting discussion. Professor Robert mcconock,
who once worked at the Reserve Bank, is unafraid pleasantly

(00:51):
so to express his opinions on almost anything, and especially
so in his field of expertise. His thoughts on cash,
cbdc's privacy versus government control are valuable, as also his
political submissions in Podcasts three one nine, and as is
our usual want, we expand the conversation into other areas

(01:13):
of interest and importance. Now, you won't be at all
surprised when I say that there is so much going
on in the world at the moment, is very difficult
to nail down other matters. Apart from the interview that
features on the podcast, but there is something I want
to include at the back end of the podcast, right

(01:33):
after the Mailroom, which I believe will be of interest
to everybody unless you've already discovered it for yourself, but
as a clue. It has to do with the Iran
War and it's fascinating. But first, and keeping in line
with the interview today with Professor McCulloch, let me draw
your attention to something else. They track every dollar you move.

(01:59):
Try to wire fifteen thousand dollars. This is an American piece.
Try to wire fifteen thousand dollars to a foreign bank
account sometime and see what happens. You'll be asked to
fill out compliance forms explaining the purpose of the transfer.
Your bank's compliance department will review the transaction. A currency
transaction report will be filed with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network,

(02:23):
and depending on the bank, you may receive a follow
up phone call asking you to further justify why you're
moving your own money. Try to open a bank account overseas,
and it gets even more fun. Under the Foreign Account
Tax Compliance Act or FATKA if ATCA, every foreign bank
on Earth, every foreign bank on Earth is required to

(02:46):
report American account holders to the Internet Revenue Service. The
paperwork burden is so heavy that thousands of foreign banks
have simply stopped accepting American clients. Altogether, deposit ten thousand
dollars in cash, and the government automatically files a report.
Split it into two deposits of five thousand dollars to

(03:07):
avoid that report, and guess what You've committed a federal
crime called structuring, punishable by up to five years in prison. Now,
this is the financial surveillance infrastructure that every American lives under.
It was built over decades, starting with the Bank's Secrecy
Act in nineteen seventy, and expanded massively by the Patriot

(03:30):
Act after nine to eleven. We're told it exists to
catch money laundering, drug trafficking, terrorism financing, and financial crimes.
Yet over twelve years, Jeffrey Epstein moved three hundred and
seventy eight million dollars across two hundred and seventy wire
transfers without a single flag. A Bank of New York Mallon,

(03:54):
one of the oldest and largest financial institutions in America,
processed every one of them. Every one of them. The
bank's own compliance review could not identify a legitimate business
purpose for any of the two hundred and seventy transactions,
and no suspicious activity report was filed until twenty nineteen,

(04:16):
only after Epstein had been arrested on federal sex trafficking charges.
More than a decade passed between when the transactions occurred
and when regulators were notified. This was not an isolated
case either. Both JP Morgan Chase, and Deutsche Bank settled
lawsuits related to related to their Epstein banking relationships. The

(04:38):
pattern was identical. Process the money, ignore the red flags.
Settled quietly later, but while the banks were asleep. Another arm,
as the government was not. The Organized Crime Drug Enforcement
Task Forces Fusion Center, got that which falls together financial
intelligence from the Treasury Department. Another federal law enforcement agencies

(05:01):
compiled a trove of data on Epstein and his associates,
suspicious financial transactions, border crossing, and other records from across
multiple agencies. Now, based on that intelligence, the Drug Enforcement
Administration opened a formal investigation code named Operation Chain Reaction,
targeting Epstein and fourteen co conspirators for illegitimate wire transfers

(05:27):
tied to narcotics and prostitution in the US Virgin Islands.
And New York City, and once again, nothing came of it.
The investigation ran for at least five years, no charges
were ever filed, and the names of all fourteen co
conspirators remain redacted to this day. So what exactly is
the point of all the surveillance and regulation, all this infrastructure,

(05:50):
the reports, the compliance departments, the cross agency intelligence sharing,
the billions spent building a surveillance apparatus that monitors every
dollar the average American moves, and it couldn't produce a
single charge against the most prolific child sex trafficking operation
in modern history. But a split of ten thousand dollars

(06:12):
deposit into two transactions at your local bank and you're
facing five years in federal prison. The entire Know your
Customer regime, the currency transaction reports, the suspicious activity reports,
FATKA and anti structuring laws, all of it functions perfectly

(06:33):
against you. Against you is emphasized. Now there's more, but
you get the picture. Now, what's that got to do
with the discussion today? And the cash and secrecy and
the cdcds and the government tracking everything that you spend.
Plenty and most of it will be discussed in the

(06:58):
conversation to follow with Professor McCullock right after a short break.
Buccolan is a natural oral vaccine in a tablet form
called bacterial liesate. It'll boost your natural protection against bacterial
infections in your chest and throat. A three day course

(07:21):
of seven Bucklan tablets will help your body build up
to three months of immunity against bugs which cause bacterial
cold symptoms. So who can take buccolan well, the whole
family From two years of age and upwards. A course
of Buckelan tablets offers cost effective and safe protection from
colds and chills. Protection becomes effective a few days after

(07:42):
you take buccolan and lasts for up to three months
following the three day course. Buccolan can be taken throughout
the cold season, over winter or all year round. And
remember Buckolan is not intended as an alternative to influenza vaccination,
but may be used along with the flu vaccination for
added protection. And keep in mind that millions of doses

(08:02):
have been taken by Kiwis for over fifty years. Only
available from your pharmacist. Always read the lay and users
directed and see your doctor if systems persist. Farmer Broker
Auckland Latam Smith. Now it was almost two years ago,

(08:26):
not quite, because it was August of twenty four when
we last spoke with Professor Robert McCulloch, and it was
a very interesting conversation. And with the announcement by the
Reserve Bank which came out of nowhere and almost stunned everybody.
I was stunned with regard to what they're advising the

(08:48):
banking system they must do, and they're doing a survey
on it and they want you to take part in it.
But the point being that they've been closing down eightyms
and branch banks or bank branches for the last couple
of years or if not longer, and it's made life
very difficult for some. And I wouldn't include myself in that,

(09:13):
but they've caused me some issues because because the Westpac
people who are my local and my bank, not only
took out the ATM, they then followed with the not
it was the other way around. They are not only
closed down the branch, they took out the ATM after
a little while, and that made it made it frustrating.

(09:34):
So the question is why would they be doing it
and who better to turn to than the Professor Robert
mccuock because this is of a great interest to him.
I know that because of the previous conversation we had
and the fact that the Reserve Bank is undertaking this
approach from out of nowhere. And Robert McCulloch worked the

(09:54):
Reserve Bank for a period of time before he went
overseas very good to have you back on the podcast,
are you well, yes, yes, not too bad, excellent. So
this move by the Reserve, what would you put it
down to How would you explain it?

Speaker 3 (10:12):
Well, I'd explain it probably more on equity inequality lines
than anything in the sense that there's a concern maybe
in the provinces, in regions where people relied on maybe
a branch or a cash machine. Then it's taken out.

(10:35):
And the objective of the bank that you were alluding
to before is what does it want out of it? Well,
to make more money, you know, it's a profit maximizing
Australian owned bank that we mainly bank with and to
make more money. It's not worth them servicing the cash
machine or the branch, and they take it out and
it may particularly hurt maybe a low income person, someone

(11:00):
living you know, who finds it hard then to access it,
they have to drive a lot, a lot further, so
that's more hurting a low income person. So that's more
an equity issue that the bank is taking out because
they think it's more efficient. They can run their business
more efficiently and make more money that way. So there's
a bit of a clash in terms of an economics

(11:23):
what we call sort of equity and efficiency, and you know,
the Reserve Bank is somewhat concerned about that, and you know,
related to that is the bigger agenda that I'm quite
supportive of the Reserve Bank, although although it you know,
it has messed up so many things that last number
of years. But on the future of cash, the Reserve

(11:45):
Bank has been quite good and that it's defending cash.
That the banks to make more money, would like there
to be no cash, everything to be electronic. It's very
expensive for them to handle cash. So there is a
bit of a bigger agenda there that they'd like to
sort of get cash out out and just everything what

(12:07):
we do is just on our internet banking or on
our on our phone, and I think that can hurt people.
On that I appeal to certain sort of privacy and freedom.
My freedom instincts that I like cash. I hate the
idea that every single thing we buy can be seen
and monitored by the banks and government, well you know

(12:31):
when it's all electronic and so so that's the other
agenda going on, which I'm broadly supportive of, to try
to sort of still keep keep cash as being being
an option.

Speaker 2 (12:44):
What's got me for the first time. I've always stood
up for the banks that they when they're accused of
making too much money and disservicing their clientele. I've always
stood up for them on the basis that it's there.
It's their business and that's what they're there for, et cetera.
But it's also to provide services at the same time,

(13:09):
and the idea of central bank digital currencies has gained momentum. Well,
I would have to say that this year, which isn't
very old yet, i've heard nothing about it. And that's
why I was surprised at the Reserve Bank of New
Zealand suggesting, because I know that they were looking and

(13:31):
probably still are looking at a central bank digital currency.
I have that on authority. The fact that they've now
would just be the result of the new governor.

Speaker 3 (13:42):
Do you think, ah, it's been going on now, it's
been going on before that. That's quite an ongoing project
and central banks around the world have been looking at
it for quite a while. It's a hard topic, this
topic of money, so sort of what is that central
bank digital currency. The essentially allows you and me to

(14:02):
have an account at the reserve bank directly. And the
nice thing about that is we don't then have to
be concerned that, you know, Ancid or Westpact may get
into financial trouble. It's sort of safer holding it at
the reserve bank. And currently the big banks do have
essentially check accounts at the Reserve Bank, and but they're

(14:27):
the only ones allowed to sort of the big institutions.
Private individuals I can't directly hold a check account at
the RB and Z, so they're thinking of widening that
to everyone. And it's been seriously looked at around the world.
So no, it's not unique to this country at all.

(14:51):
And you know, there is a nice feature of it
where you know, it does take away a certain nervousness
of banking with a private bank because it could get
into trouble. But at the same time it is it
is sort of referred to as an electronic you know,
it's an entry. We have an account and it's an
electronic entry at the Reserve Bank.

Speaker 2 (15:13):
But it also it also supplies authorities with information should
they want it.

Speaker 3 (15:20):
Well, that's quite right, and it's where my instincts are
that when everything is digital and electronic, whether it's held
at the private bank or with the government. Although the
lawyers say there are certain privacy protections about that, my

(15:43):
instinct is not to buy it. Instinctively distrustful of the
government in terms of what it can access and currently
the idea when we're all forced onto electronic transaction, should
there be no cash that literally my bank, like yours,
Westpac knows that it's sort of past ten. I went
up to war Worths and bought toilet paper, which they

(16:06):
do know they can access in your account. It's an
incredible invasion of privacy that they can just read every
sort of transaction you're doing. And then to have the account,
as you say, held it that held essentially with the
government at the Central Bank. And of course governments love
it for taxes. They can just they love taxing everything

(16:28):
that moves, so you know, everything we do can be monitored.
So I am somewhat a fan of there's still being
cash and not buying into so much the hype that
you know, a wonderful future awaits when everything is electronic.

Speaker 2 (16:46):
Let me quote you from a paragraph, small paragraph from
a book. But if one looks more deeply, it becomes
apparent that the virtues of paper currency open the door
to many vices. This is an argument that they're always
putting up large denomination notes, which constitute eighties and ninety
percent of the global hard currency supply, largely circulate in

(17:07):
the underground, underground economy, helping facilitate tax evation, crime and corruption,
and on a big scale. Tax evation at all levels
is more than three percent of GDP in the United
States and likely much higher in most European countries. No
one likes taxes, but if the government is able to
collect more revenue from tax evators, it will be in

(17:29):
a position to collect less taxes from everyone else. Can
I just insert here before you have a comment That
last sentence, it'll be in a position to collect less
taxes from everyone else, I say, is hogwash?

Speaker 3 (17:43):
Yeah, hole, gosh, what a load of hogwash, that's right.
The idea that the government can collect a bit more,
which would only be a tiny bit more anyway from
those sources, and that would end up cutting all other
income taxes as a consequence. Is ridiculous. I don't buy

(18:06):
that either. We know governments nearly always on the grab
for more, more taxes, and again, you know, it's it's interesting,
you know, when you look at the long sweep of
history vilifying people that are acting sort of outside government
control and sort of these awful people that are trying

(18:26):
to do things which you know is not is what
they call avoiding taxes or avoiding scrutiny by the authorities. Well,
you know, there are good people. It's not just criminals.
There are good people around the world who are doing
very good things who you know, a lot, a lot
of the greatest folks in history. We're doing things which

(18:47):
were called illegal when they were doing them. As a
lot of like dissidents and countries like Iran now being arrested.
And you know, to sort of say we want everyone
under the eye and watch of a central government that
can monitor anything because they can collect a tiny bit
more in tax revenue. Find that quite a thin argument

(19:09):
when you weigh it up against the loss of the
loss of privacy.

Speaker 2 (19:13):
Do you think the quote nothing to hide, nothing to fear.
Has had its day or is it still being utilized?

Speaker 3 (19:24):
It's a battle. I don't think it has had its day,
and it's currently the subject of one of the great
battles of our times. And and that that battle has
gone on for seent troops. By the way, control by
government versus private individuals, it's one of the grand themes

(19:47):
of economics. You know, how big and intervention should governments be,
and how much power should be given to the individual
and freedom. It goes back to the to the beginning
of time, and so I don't think it's it's done
at day. The modern incarnation of it is that folks

(20:09):
like Peter Teel, who is that the Silicon Valley, PayPal chap,
who's got Who's given New Zealand citizenship mask? There there
that tech group wildly behind digital currencies, the bitcoin cryptocurrencies,
because they want to escape the clutters of government. They
don't want to use government currencies like the KeyWe dollar

(20:33):
to do their transactions, and private outfits can develop these
crypto these currencies, and it is they like it because
there is a sort of freedom aspect to it. It's
outside the the auspices of the government. So you know
that that's one of the great debates of our time,

(20:53):
how much we can we can sort of sort of
you know, conduct ourselves and our businesses where we're not
under that scrutiny.

Speaker 2 (21:01):
Let me ask you another question. What is it that
decides the value of the New Zealand dollar.

Speaker 3 (21:09):
Yes, so that's a question going into this very one
of the hardest topics in economics on the nature of
money and why money exists. So what gives it its
value is that it's called the medium of exchange. So
to buy and sell things in ancient times we did barter,

(21:31):
so I had e su had ducks, and we might
swap one one for the other. And then people worked
out that this great invented called money meant that we
could just use that as a medium of exchange and
pay in cash. And what gave what gives money its
value is that it's useful as a medium of exchange.

(21:54):
So it's day to day here to pay in cash
rather than bartering is much more convenient for us. And
the thing that guarantees the value then of say the
Key week dollar, which has no inherent value like a goal,
is that the government has promised that it won't devalue

(22:17):
that currency, that it won't suddenly cheat should you like,
and print more money, give it to its friends. And
we find that that dollar we're using drops some value.
And the government has guaranteed through legislation in this country,
the Reserve Bank Act, where it's the promise to keep

(22:39):
inflation stable that it hasn't been doing a great job of.
But that's essentially a promise that will do our best
not to undermine the value of those notes in their
use as a medium of exchange. So it's that legislated
guarantee which is protecting its value of this thing that
is actually useful to us to go about our business.

Speaker 2 (23:02):
All right, when you touched on it, because you said
it's not done a very good job, and it hasn't
the value of the dollar against the British pounder, and
I just don't get a big singles in a mess
forty four cents a bit up or a bit down
from that, depending on the on the day. And it
dropped very suddenly. So again, let me put the question

(23:23):
to you what caused that? How did it happen? And
then the follow up is going to be how do
we prevent it?

Speaker 3 (23:32):
Well, the value of the currency, like pretty much everything
in this in the subject of economists, depends on the price.
It's a price exchange rate, and the price is determined
by sources of demand and supply. And when it comes
to like the key wee dollar, two of the biggest

(23:53):
sources of demand around the world for out dollar to
bio exports like our dairy products and for tourists are
coming here. And the other factor that can drive the
demand for out dollar is sent to wis foreign investors
want it. Want people want to be invested here and
are buying our dollar as as a you know, because

(24:16):
they think it will be a good yield for their investment.
So that's where the dumb demand comes from, and the
supply is from the office sort of factors. If you
like it, he we's wanting to buy imports, we have
to sell our dollars to buy imports, or keys wanting
to invest abroad. So when you see a collapse in

(24:36):
the dollar like ours, our exports are pretty strong, you know,
dairy and tourisms are being bouncing back, so that doesn't
seem a big problem on on that side, you know,
you think that it may may really strengthen the dollar
so it would indicate to me there's a weakness on
the investment side that we're not we're not seen as

(25:00):
such an attractive place to you know invest and to
hold key Wei dollars for that purpose, and that it's
probably related to a general you know, loss of confidence
in the country. Our economic growth slowed, they're not a
lot of happening investments to be made here. There are

(25:21):
a lot of places in the world you can do
a lot better with your money now than investing in
New Zealand. So that's probably it could probably be traced
back back to that generalized sort of loss of interest
in actually buying our dollar. Bye, investors.

Speaker 2 (25:37):
I'm wondering how much racism has to do with it,
and I better explain. I'm thinking of the of the
I did a podcast on this. I'm thinking of the
company trans Tasman Resources or something similar t TR and

(26:00):
it's basically headed by a Kiwi the next pat but
he still lives here much of the time. And that
had to go before the appropriate committees. And this is
the fast track stuff. It was anything but fast track,
and it got stemied at this point anyway, it's stemied,
and it's all it's all on a well there's a

(26:21):
touch of racism in there, but let's say it's on
a woke basis. Is that it's been that's been battered away.
Is it not time that the government of the day
did something about that.

Speaker 3 (26:35):
Well, my view is that there is a fundamental uncertainty
in this country now about the nature of property rights
and who owns what. That's my view, and that would
hugely brought me off wanting to invest in this country
because it's not completely nailed down. And I found it

(26:56):
extraordinary when Seymour was trying to introduce his Principles Bill
into Parliament, the legal profession came out and said he
can't do that, it's unconstitutional. And I looked into that issue,
did a bit of work on it. It turns out

(27:17):
that no one really knows what our constitution is, including
the legal profession. We don't have a single document like
the US Constitution, and then it's got formal amendments, and
the lawyers then start up on this incredibly confusing line
that oh, we sort of do but it's not located
in one document. It's in lots of documents, but we

(27:38):
can't really tell you what they are. And it's in
lots of legal decisions. So the upshot is they don't.
The law profession don't really know what our constitution is,
but yet they declared what Seymour was doing unconstitutional. To me,
I'm not so much a lawyer, more in economics. These

(27:58):
arguments just reflect to me that properly rights are not
well defined in the country. It's very hard to say
who owns what anymore, and it would certainly put me
off wanting to invest in New Zealand.

Speaker 2 (28:08):
Well, you've got the change in ability of foreigners to
come into the country with larger amounts of money and
hang out buying twenty million dollar homes for instance. Are
they doing that? Do you think ignorantly?

Speaker 3 (28:23):
I know a few of them, and the NATS have
sort of encouraged it. The ones I know are typically
children of rich people living abroad, Basically the children who
are not working and the family's given them a bit
of money to hang out in New Zealand or send
their children to school here. But typically they pretend to

(28:45):
be entrepreneurs, but they're not. They're often from quite a
rich family. So I think just the fact you're investing
bigger than a certain amount of money doesn't rarely associate
it self necessarily at all with bringing skills or knowledge
or technology or expertise to the country at all, So

(29:07):
I sort of know that that's agenda with this. We
have a paucity of investment. So the Initiative, who's their
chief who are their main advisors? Matt Burgess who used
to work at the Initiative as Chris Sucksin's chief policy advisor,
And the line is, we don't have enough investments, so
let's get these rich folks coming here. The NATSLAS tried

(29:29):
this with Peter Teel, and they don't like talking about
the Peter Peel case. As far as I can work out,
maybe he was sizing up New Zealand for some tech investments.
Then he tried to build his house in Wanaka and
spent about ten years arguing with the council about one
of the most eco friendly, beautiful houses that has ever

(29:50):
been built in the country. The council wouldn't let it.
I think it had grass on its roof and the
council wouldn't let it go. And I think he just thought,
I can't even build a little house in this country.
It's so impossible to do anything here. Screw New Zealand.
I'm not going to invest ten more bucks here. So
that was my impression of what happened with him. We

(30:11):
kind of scared him off and he actually cave. Where
I worked, the University of Wilton had a knowledge Way
Economy conference many years ago and he came to it.
Some very famous people came. It was done when Helen
Clark was PM, John Hood was Vice Chancellor, and it's
interesting he doesn't speak much about it, but he all

(30:32):
said way back then, twenty five years ago, what he
loved about New Zealand back then was he said this freedom.
And he said, you know, I've been to Queenstown. You
can go on the jet boat, you can hurt yourself,
but whatever, you know, there's a freedom to bungee jump
and the rules don't get in your way. And he said,
I love countries that don't have too many rules and

(30:54):
where the people are trusting. And I think those were
the two great qualities of this country that did make
it one successful and now they've largely gone. I think
the risk taking culture and that you might even yourself
doing a bungee jump, that's all gone. In health and safety,

(31:17):
we seem incredibly cautious about everything, especially since the pandemic.
There are tons of rules and regulations. So yes, I
think I think that's scared off a lot of people.
And I don't think these few children of rich folks
coming here is going to change much at all on
that front.

Speaker 2 (31:34):
Well, if they are as you have described it, when
they've been here for a while, do you think they
will wake up to what you've suggested?

Speaker 3 (31:46):
I know, yes, I know quite a lot of these fopes,
and the school's here, and many of them their children
have dual citizenship, and I think their plan is to
go to school here, not to university here or do tertiary,
and they're going to leave. They're highly mobile and they're

(32:07):
going to leave after their children have been at school here.
So I don't really take it seriously about that sort
of mythical in foreign investors, like a sugar daddy coming
to save us. I think to the extent we need,
you know, really significant amounts of investment, it should come
from our own savings. Essentially, what you're asking is the

(32:29):
NATS strategy is we don't have any savings, so let's
try to get the savings of some mythical rich person
living abroad. And my views. We need our own savings,
and that's why my viewers have been strongly supporting this
idea of an Australian style super scheme. Here where all
assies have their super savings accounts, the average balance of

(32:52):
nearly five hundred thousand, and here Key We Save Us
become shambalic. The average balance is only about it's ten
times less than Australia. The coret of the country aren't
in it. I know what's been going on with the
Nats with Key We Saver, and Willis doesn't understand the scheme.
It's beyond her how to reform it. She has no
plans to make it mandatory. But I think because of that,

(33:16):
that's a reason why I've largely lost faith in New Zealand.
Because the NATS have no plan around savings, don't want
to move to a keyting Australian style scheme. So all
the young are going to Australia starting jobs tomorrow on
double the salary. But also they're getting these twelve percent
contributions from their employer and just five or ten years

(33:37):
later they have one two hundred thousand in their super
account and here they'll be lucky to have twenty thousand,
So I think the extent we need more capital, more investment,
it should come from within. It should come from a
well designed savings plan like the Ossies had. But the
NAT strategy, which they haven't been that open of, is
just to rely on a rich sugar daddy to come

(34:00):
and bail us out. And my personal experience of these
rich sugar daddies, not that we want to invoke the
name of Epstein, I'm highly suspicious about most of them.
I've never seen any of these folks come with a
lot of money without wanting a lot in exchange, and
often I'm very suspicious about what they do want in exchange.

(34:22):
So I'm very wary of thinking that you'll save your
lives and some some rich, rich guy with a lot
of money saying he's going to bail me out.

Speaker 2 (34:33):
I find that most intriguing. Now, all that I was
asking you over the last few minutes was really carving
out a line for me to get to this particular point,
which I've raised on a number of occasions. And I
think you're probably the best one to ask this of
because you put it all together. We've got a very low,

(34:55):
low value dollar. We don't have enough. We don't have
enough investment, we don't have the right people, et cetera. Yeah,
what's what's stopping and would it be a good idea?
So I'm reverse that would it be a good idea?
Or what's stopping the backing of the New Zealand dollar
With gold? We have considerable supplies of gold still in

(35:19):
the ground in this country and there's nothing stopping it
from being dug up unless it's one of the one
of the situations like I described before about about offshore mining.
Why can't we Why can't we do what the Americans
are very likely to do, and that is go back
on a gold standard.

Speaker 3 (35:40):
Well, yeah, there are two sort of issues there. Like
with the mining for gold here, you can you can
be a big miner in gold like Australia is and
have big companies doing that and to the extent it's
extremely valuable. And you know, the miners in Australia are
exporting a lot of precious metals and rare earths that

(36:02):
on its own can create like quite a strong demand
for the dollar, so that that on its own can
rescue the dollar to the extent you become very rich
in resources, certainly like Australia is our equivalent to gold
has traditionally been milk. I remember I remember going to

(36:23):
a speech by John Key once many years ago, and
he said he'd visited the Crown Prince in Saudi Arabia
and the Crown Prince said to him, ah, you know
you're a They call me an oil shake, which makes
you a milkshake, which is about you know, the not
a bad joke from Sir John. And so in a way,
milk has been our sort of gold or oil. But

(36:46):
as you say, you know the extent we produce a
lot more of those minerals, it could help the wealth
of the country and the demand for our currency. The
other issue is like sixth thing, the New Zealand dollar
and be having it backed by gold, saying yeah, one
New Zealand dollar will buy you nothing this yeah, well,

(37:11):
you know a certain weight of gold. And there's a long,
long history of the gold standard, and it's sets up
when countries were on that because each country is sort
of fixing against a weight of gold. It's called fixed
exchange rates, and they're backed by gold. And there was

(37:32):
a view that it was maybe one of the reasons
that provided a certain instability in the world, leading up
to the Great Depression that fixing the exchange rate, you know,
so it couldn't move at all against other currencies, was

(37:52):
not beneficial because it's better to just have a free
market in the currency. Like I mentioned before, demand and supply.
It's just where the market books it. But we had
a fixed exchange rate before Rob Muldoon was by it
out going, and then we floated our dollar in nineteen
eighty four and moved away from a fixed exchange trade.

(38:15):
It wasn't backed by gold, but it was fixed, and
gold is another way of sort of fixing fixing the rate,
and I think it's very unlikely we will go back
to that. One of the disadvantages of fixing your dollar
is should there be a shock like this country is
not sort of doing quite so well now, it does allow,

(38:39):
with free markets, the value of the dollar to drop,
and that can create buffers. So it's cheaper for tourists
now to come here and travel. It makes our export's cheaper.
So it's viewed that maybe it's good to have that
sort of that flexibility. So closing down the market for
an exchange for our dollar and fixing it, the general

(39:02):
view in economics is where it we're somewhat against those
kinds of moves because there's somewhat anti free.

Speaker 2 (39:09):
I recall it in our last conversation you raised the
subject of meritocracy and it had disappeared pretty much, and
you were appealing for it, demanding that we should we
should reinvest in meritocracy.

Speaker 3 (39:26):
Has it changed, No, No, it's probably got worse. I
don't regard New Zealand as a meritocracy. And it's not
my view because I meet a lot of the school
children who are applying for awards and scholarships and trying
to get overseas, and they asked me for sort of
references and I do some scholarship committees and things, and

(39:48):
the overwhelming view of them as they can't see a
future career in this country. And the impression I get
is a lot of it is related to meritocracy. I
think there's a stale inside group, very inbred group in Wellington,

(40:08):
but also in corporate New Zealand that has stymied, stolen
the future careers away from most of young New Zealand.
It's not a subject they really want to talk about
it much because a lot of these the mates culture
in our corporate boards a lot of them are accountants

(40:30):
and lawyers who know each other, who don't have a
clue about the company and how it works. And I
think that group are just clinging on to the good jobs.
And I see it in our students. They want to
use a top student. New Zealand has no shortage of
amazing school children doing outstandingly well as good as anywhere

(40:53):
in the world, and we're just achieving some fantastic results.
You know, they talk about the educationalism, but there's a
top few percent in that who're just doing amazing and
they can't see the future career paths here and the
job for going to people who know each other on
other grounds, it's not based on merit, and I think

(41:14):
that's the fundamental root of what's holding back the country.

Speaker 2 (41:17):
Are those kids local kids or they imports?

Speaker 3 (41:25):
Well, you know that distinction now is you know when
it's hard to draw because most are residents in New Zealand.
They may have been born overseas, but most of them
are residents here. And so it's not just that group.

(41:45):
I mean, my own children can't really see how they
can have a career in this country. So it's not
just applying to folks whose parents were born overseas. I mean,
I know the game with my own children in this country.
I know, I've been looking at it for ten years.
How the National Party works, how corporate New Zealand works.

(42:07):
I mean, the people who both Hipkins and Luxeon have
appointed around them, it makes me sick. It just makes
me sick. I mean it's a group of an inbred democracy.
Luxeon got back essentially a group of twenty or thirty
of John Key's mates put them in the top jobs.

(42:28):
I mean, it's just I find it unbearable. I mean,
you know, when I graduated from university here, I went
to Wellington, Graham Scott was Secretary of the Treasury. That's
when I was a kid. I was about twenty three
years old. Graham Scott's what in his eighties. Now something
willis put him in his chair of her Social Investment Agency.
That whole thing's been stuffed up. They put the police

(42:50):
chief and his CEO and he resigned. Most of the
appointments I've seen have gone to very well connected people,
and I think it's that the root of what's holding
back a lot, and it's why I've opted out of
most well. I don't want to have anything to do
with speaking to MPs anymore at all, because I know

(43:12):
they're not sincere about it. I know they have there
in a group of advisors who are their mates.

Speaker 2 (43:19):
Well, I've got a singular question for you for a reason.
Would you include Shane Jones in that group?

Speaker 3 (43:31):
Would I include him? What in a group that well,
to the extent I think on the topic of Jones,
he's a list MP. No, because he didn't get us.
He didn't win a seat, none of them, none of them,
None of them did. So on that note, I think
the list, this MMP list, I looked it up yesterday.

(43:53):
Half of all Labor MPs got in on the list.
So when you have such a huge proportion of parliament
who have never stood up in front of a real
audience and won them over and impressed them, but more
have the character that they've bummed around the party. Got

(44:14):
to know everyone worked for the party. I mean Nichola
Willis did this, worked for John Key's office, got to
know all the nats completely part of that group of chums.
And there's a whole group of MPs who just are
working to get to know people in the party and
then going onto the list and I think that's been

(44:36):
somewhat detrimental to the quality of our democracy and it
has led to even the signals from the top are
this is a nation built on chumps. You have to
become friends with the Labor Party, friends with the Nats,
and then they'll brought you on the list and that's

(44:58):
how you get into Parliament, and you may have no
real great other qualities at all. So I'm not happy
in that sense that Jones has is a less MP
and when he tried to stand got rejected.

Speaker 2 (45:13):
His popularity is rising. Yeah, I experienced it quite frequently,
and I have to say that I fall into I
fall into the support category. There's a couple of them.
There's a couple of them like that. The subject of
economics and history and how closely those two subjects related,

(45:39):
for you.

Speaker 3 (45:39):
Well, inestricably, because a lot of the history of the
world is a history of economic development and technological change.
And you know, so when we study the subject, the
first big sort of huge technological shift to industrialization happened

(46:03):
during the Industrial Revolution in Brastol. So it's a topic
of great interest to economists and how to grow faster
and look even today, New Zealand doesn't really know how
can we increase the pace of technological change and economic growth?

(46:24):
And that's been one of the big puzzles for the
millennia in the world. How can since Roman times, how
can you increase the standard of living? And how can
the economy improve? So the two are sort of inextricably
linked in a way, the story of development of humankind
is inextricably linked to the development and wealth that we enjoy.

Speaker 2 (46:50):
So as a follow up to that, is the world
in the world in any sort of shall we say
healthy condition at the moment?

Speaker 3 (47:02):
I think it probably is. I think people are dwelling
too much on the sort of the shocks, you know,
the wars and things that are afflicting us. And I
think that the tech industry is obviously driving perhaps on

(47:22):
a scale of the industrial revolution in the sort of
in the eighteenth century, nineteenth century in Britain. It could
ultimately lead to a transformation in our living standards. And
I think that's quietly grinding on and what gives me
optimism about the world. I'm not convinced. I think New

(47:44):
Zealand is slipping relative to other countries, plummeting like a rock,
because what's happening is I think on the whole the
world is doing well in the sense that something unprecedented
has happened because of the tech revolution. The poorest kids

(48:06):
in Africa in parts of Asia when I grew up,
who just had no way of getting out of their situation,
no hope at all. The amazing thing now is even
with a sort of a nine dollar the cheapest mobile,
but something that's connected to the web, those children can

(48:26):
actually download the whole education resources of the world and
have them available to them. They don't need to go
to school necessarily. They can go through those you know,
those materials on the web themselves, should they be you know,
hard working, smart kid. And also on their phone, they

(48:47):
can start a business, they can receive payments on their phone,
they can set themselves up. And I think, I think
what the left, the sort of the anti market people
are not really being very straight about is I think
there is a wave of kind of pro market feeling, entrepreneurship,

(49:07):
the spirit of sort of starting a business for perhaps
several billion young children around the world who never had
access to any of that stuff before. And I think
you're going to see, you know, an explosion of that
sort of entrepreneurial behavior. It's now open to more people
in the world than ever before through the tech industry.

(49:29):
So I think I think that force will drive the
world economy higher over the next few decades.

Speaker 2 (49:34):
Interesting, there's a headline the Clash of Civilizations restarts restarts history,
and this is a This is basically what it's founded on.
Thirty five years ago, American political scientist Francis Fukiyama made
a name for himself, and.

Speaker 3 (49:53):
We all know what that was.

Speaker 2 (49:55):
Expecting all human struggles to barrel toward a state of
imminence equilibrium. You mentioned that word earlier, and future peace.
Fukuyama stated out loud what many other late twentieth century
thinkers also believe. Humanity had reached the end of history. Now,
this is a this is a commentary piece that I've

(50:17):
just quoted from the first paragraph. I want to go
straight to the last one. Western globalists who refused to
learn the basics won't last long. From the Arctic to
the Antarctic, battle lines are being drawn and redrawn everywhere.
The past informs the present, the present informs the future.
The rest of history is just now beginning. So it's

(50:39):
a take on it's a take on Fukuyama to begin with,
and an attempt to show and prove that he was
totally wrong and the rest of history is just now beginning.
Does that ring any bells for you?

Speaker 3 (50:56):
Yes, well, you know we're all aware of that. You
know that famous Fukiyama line that I understood, we'd all
become these versions of European or American style democracies, and
the whole world would just move that and then we'd
all just gradually become better off with economic growth, and

(51:19):
that's all there was to talk about. I think the
one thing that has surprised us all since he wrote that,
which relates to the problems in this country, is that
we never expected that the democracies that he's referring to,
our democratically elected leaders would be so disappointing in so

(51:43):
many many of many Western countries. And what's wrong footed
us is that a lot of more authoritarian countries, take
Singapore for example, have boomed and Singapore incomes now at
two three times higher than New Zealand. So a lot

(52:04):
of those countries have surged ahead of US economic and
I think Fukiyama didn't know about that or see that
at the time, and I think the fact, not to mention,
China have done economically so brilliantly, that's leading to a
questioning of this sort of Fukiyama idea that the whole

(52:25):
world would just be some big liberal democracy. There seems
to be problems in our democracies and they haven't been
addressed or reformed. And I think we all feel that
in New Zealand that many of our politicians are failing us.
I mean, I don't meet MPs at all now because

(52:45):
it's just a complete waste of time. Most of them
have no interest in even the subject of discussion. They
just have something else on their mind. They're just meeting
because Luxe and Is say given them a KPI that
they have to meet three people every week, and they're
just checking that off. So there's some sort of failure
in our democracies. And I think that it's still achievable

(53:08):
what he wrote about. But I think that the democracies
of the West need a real serious reform because they're
not working well. A friend of mine from South Korea
said yesterday, and a colleague of mine who was Australian

(53:31):
Chinese who's moved here. I didn't really know this, but
they said, although New Zealand is officially a democracy of
your government, we all know when you look at New Zealand,
the parties, our companies, so many are in bred. So
many it's jobs for mates. Accountants and lawyers, reign engineers

(53:51):
are kind of put at the bottom. Economists like me.
They'll call you an analyst, and then some manager who's
got some fluffy sort of background wants to be on
the big bucks and orders us around. There's a complete
failure in many of these institutions now in the West
and the South Korean and I was saying in many

(54:15):
ways in Singapore and in Asia, many of the organizations
are run in a much more meritocratic line, and so
the hard workers, the smart people are promoted, even though
at the top the government is quite autocratic. And I
think that that's quite shocked me. In this country, we
say we're a democracy, but it goes back to I

(54:37):
think I think democracies need to have that meritocracy in them,
and we've lost that. And now I think that sort
of wrong footed Fujiyama. He thought the West was just
something the whole world aspired to be like that. Actually,
our own institutions are doing quite poorly.

Speaker 2 (54:54):
You're still enjoying teaching.

Speaker 3 (54:56):
Yeah, yeah, it's the best thing being around young people.
It's the opposite of tarmocracy because the young people are
just trying to get ahead and maybe look abroad, and
they're the best people to be around in this country.
But when you look at the older group and the
a so called sort of in red establishment in Wellington,

(55:19):
it's just appalling. So the young people are what we've
got to build a country where they have hope that
they can do well here, which they don't at the moment.

Speaker 2 (55:29):
Robert McCulloch, there's been a pleasure talking with you again
and I've been very interested in what you've had to say,
and I'm sure that a lot of other people will also,
so thank you.

Speaker 3 (55:39):
Yeah, thanks for having me.

Speaker 2 (55:55):
I went to the mail room with Missus producer waiting
patient lye for podcasts number three hundred and nineteen Lighton.

Speaker 3 (56:02):
How are you?

Speaker 2 (56:03):
It is morning? I'm very wealthy.

Speaker 4 (56:05):
It is morning, to be honest with you, I've just
woken up.

Speaker 2 (56:07):
It's not a morning as I would like it to
be honest.

Speaker 4 (56:11):
The sun's not shining, it's.

Speaker 2 (56:13):
Not it's gone away, and I don't blame it for.

Speaker 3 (56:16):
Me to start.

Speaker 2 (56:17):
Why not, Jin says.

Speaker 4 (56:18):
In a recent interview, Nick Smith gave three reasons why
Luxeon is doing badly in the polls. Firstly, it's impossible
to run a government when the last damn government has
pre spent all the money. Secondly, it's a bad time
internationally to be a government. Thirdly, the mainstream media is
clickbaiting an already polarized society. It might pay to remember

(56:41):
that Chris Luxon wasn't voted in for his charisma. He
was voted in for his management competence. And if we
New Zealanders are even thinking of voting based on charisma,
it might pay to remember that the last time we
did that, we got just In Ardurn, the kind queen
of economic incompetence. And this brings us to Trump. A

(57:03):
lot of people dislike his personality, yet more than fifty
percent of Americans still voted for him because he's proven
to be a good manager. As George Friedman said, it's
easy to dismiss Trump as a moron, but fifty percent
of voters cannot be morons. And there's a little bit
more Jin, thank you. But we'll finish up with if

(57:23):
more than fifty percent of us vote for National New
Zealand First and Act. Remember, fifty percent of us cannot
possibly be morons.

Speaker 2 (57:32):
I'm tempted to question that, but nevertheless, I mean it's
been shown in the past to be possible. Just look
at MMP. Anyway, thank you, Jim. The following is interesting.
I thought you might be interested in the emails that
I sent to party leaders after a National Party meeting
last week in Oriwa, and then says a brilliant interview

(57:55):
this week and I learned a lot about Iran. That
was with George Friedman, of course, and Leon continues by
including the letter that he's sent to the ministers Deer Ministers.
My wife and I were very pleased to attend the
quarterly meeting hosted by Minister Mark Mitchell with guest speaker
Minister Simeon Brown. Simeon's talk was very encouraging as he

(58:18):
spoke about the progress on improved outcomes in the health
sector figures not published in the public arena. I spoke
of issues close to my heart and would like to
record them as set out below. Remember this is the
letter that he's written to the National Party. I listened
to a recent interview with Shane Jones, and he made

(58:39):
it very clear of his views of the climate change saga.
I urged the government to follow the lead of the
USA and other major countries who have withdrawn from the
Paris Accord. New Zealand should focus more on climate change
adaptation and put more resources into stopbanks and sea walls, etc.
Nothing is going to stop the ongoing storms of the

(59:02):
future around the world. Both China and India have not
signed up to the Paris Accord, and yet they create
a high proportion of pollutants, whereas New Zealand provides only
zero zero point one four percent. Is that the best
we can do? With the northern hemisphere in turmoil at

(59:23):
a daily threat of an outbreak of a major war,
Your government should work toward becoming more independent as a
nation and urge the government to pursue oil, gas, gold
and mineral exploration. The review created could be utilized to
bolster the billions of dollars needed to bring the infrastructure
projects up to date. I was encouraged by the applause

(59:46):
I received and the positive response by both Mark and Simeon.
I believe if your government mandated my suggestions above, you
will sweep back into government in November, yours sincerely, well,
I find nothing to disagree with what Leon's written question is,
Will anybody take any notice of it?

Speaker 4 (01:00:07):
Layton Brett says, the the human drama must play out
in all the turmoil throughout this period of human history.
Humanity is unable to fence it. Everything is in flux.
It's a period we must pass through, no matter our discomfort.
Much will be revealed in these times, and many people
will be forced to reveal who they are. Others will
find themselves having to reevaluate their thinking, truths and values.

(01:00:31):
The dysfunctional structures, organization and systems of humanity will be
tested and found wanting. It doesn't matter who gets closest
in their personal evaluation of events in Iran. Time will
reveal all. Iran is only one aspect of the much
larger picture, and no one knows how it's all going
to turn out for humanity till the end of the century.

(01:00:54):
And there's a little bit more breadth. Thank you, But
he ends up with George Friedman was a pleasure and
further food for thought. I appreciate his quiet demeanor and insight.
Have a wonderful day, and thank you for your efforts
to bring some enlightenment to man is facing us here
and abroad.

Speaker 2 (01:01:10):
I think Bred's been very busy this week because I've
got a couple more from him. There is a lot
of focus on the National Party leader PM. You get
what you see, and you see what you get. No
surprise is there and well foreseeable. The PM national leader
himself is unimportant emphasized. The actual problem is deeply ingrained

(01:01:34):
in the National Party itself. Take ownership. It doesn't seem
to matter who's in government. They all have their respective turns.
None are willing to change the actual direction slash path
of the country and so the cycle continues. You know,
there is a great deal of insight in that. I mean,
it's not meaning to be insulting bread. It's not brilliant.

(01:01:55):
Doesn't take a genius to work it out, is what
I'm saying. But you've said it, and you've said it well.

Speaker 4 (01:02:01):
Ladon James says, I've just watched an almost hour long
documentary by Pepi Escobar, who is a brazilianopolitical analyst, part
excellence and someone we have always listened to. He explains
the developments taking place mainly in Iran with transport corridors
and ports and terminals. It is fascinating and all part

(01:02:23):
of the Eurasian expansion with trade expansion literally between East
and West Shanghai to Saint Petersburg and North and South
India to Northern Russia and everywhere in between. And all
the US and their corrupt allies can do is threatened
to destroy it all on the end of a missile.
But never mind, these lunatic neo cons could well be

(01:02:45):
out of AMMO in ten days or so and then
the world can get on with living. There is so
much potential in the world, and we wish we could
be actively involved, but we need at least two or
three more lifetimes to achieve even part of that. This
documentary from pepi Escobar is uplifting, to say the least.
And I actually I goog you can just easily find

(01:03:06):
it on YouTube and I've watched a twenty minutes of
it and it is it's very interesting.

Speaker 2 (01:03:11):
How do you spell it?

Speaker 4 (01:03:13):
Pep escobar p e p e ees coo b R.

Speaker 2 (01:03:18):
Thank you.

Speaker 4 (01:03:19):
It's been around for a long time.

Speaker 2 (01:03:21):
Oh he has now, Ian writes an excellent analysis by
George Friedman. I did note an interview I saw the
other day with the America's Chief Iran negotiator, where he
said that right at the beginning, the Chief Iranian negotiator
said two things, we have the inalienable right to have

(01:03:43):
nuclear weapons, and we have enough high grade plutonium to
make eleven nuclear bombs. And that was pretty much that.
I would also like to say how biased on this
event media is. Our state owned media is finding every
way they can to show America and Israel and a
bad light and overestimate a round's ability to strike back. Conversely,

(01:04:03):
outlets like Fox News is taking exactly the op It
just goes to show why we can't trust much of
our media nowadays. We often get an activism rather than
balanced reporting. Your excellent podcasts are a shining light in
this media environment. Him, I'm the good work Ian. Thank you.

(01:04:26):
What I've just read leads us into the next segment
of the podcast that I've alluded to already, and there's
lot more to be said.

Speaker 4 (01:04:38):
Laden David alerts you to what he calls the most
insightful interview around at the moment, but the link doesn't
quite match up there. But his subject is Steve Whitcoff's
stunning revelations and negotiations with a ram. So if you
google that on YouTube, I'm sure you'd find it, he says.

(01:04:58):
After alluding you to that, he says, love what you do?
You said during the letters this week you were going
to catch up with someone in the States for coffee.
I will buy coffe if you're ever in Blenham.

Speaker 2 (01:05:10):
My God's David. I think there's probably all chance of
being in Blenham.

Speaker 4 (01:05:16):
Just about to say the same thing, I'm not sure
that coffee in the States is going to be any time.
All right, thank you, thank you, lighton, and we shall
see you next week.

Speaker 2 (01:05:27):
You will for run three hundred and twenty. Now, before
we go, I want to introduce you to a man
named Steve Whitcof. I alluded to him at the beginning

(01:05:50):
of the podcast, and he came up again in the
in the mail room, even mentioned by by name. I
was introduced to him in a different sort of way.
He was on the Mark Levin Show and delivered well
thirty minutes of inside information if you like, and just

(01:06:11):
riveting listening. But let me give you a background of
who Steve Whitcoff is. And I take this from an
outfit called lawfuel dot com and it's written by Ben Thompson,
who was a Law Fuel contributing editor. The stunning Steve
Whitcock career moves before Witcoff became a commanding presence in

(01:06:33):
international real estate and an unlikely Middle East diplomat, he
was doing what thousands of law graduates do, practicing law
at a New York firm, navigating contracts and learning the
intricate mechanics of deal making. Can I just throw in
here that this is a very good example for young
law students to listen to and come to grips with.

(01:06:55):
Pass it on to them if you have one in
your vicinity. But Whitcof, a graduate of Hofstra Law School,
saw something others didn't. His years at the prominent Manhattan
firm Drea Traub were not just a career. They were
a master class in understanding the legal architecture that underpins

(01:07:15):
billion dollar transactions. Working in the firm's real estate department
during the nineteen eighties, Whitcof developed an intimate knowledge of
New York's labyrinth or labyrinthine property laws, zoning regulations, and
financing structures. When he left to Dreya and Traub in
nineteen eighty five, he carried with him more than transactional experience.

(01:07:37):
He brought a lawyer's mindset, analytical, detail obsessed and acutely
aware of risk. That legal foundation would prove transformational, so
we moved to today. Whitcoff's real estate portfolio spans over
fifty one properties across New York, London, and Miami, with
an estimated net worth of five hundred million dollars. His

(01:08:00):
holdings represent some of the most strategic acquisitions in modern
real estate, and include deals that required not just capital,
but also so a high degree of sophisticated legal and
regulatory navigation that would challenge even seasoned attorneys. Unlike many
developers who rely heavily on outside council, Whitcoff's legal background

(01:08:23):
gave him an insider's advantage when it came to his deals.
He could personally dissect complex contracts, assess regulatory exposure, and
structure financing arrangements across multiple jurisdictions. His ability to identify
legal vulnerabilities and opportunities in potential acquisitions became a competitive

(01:08:44):
edge that few rivals could match. But perhaps perhaps more importantly,
his legal training shaped his negotiating philosophy. Whitcoff has described
his approach to business negotiations as treating them as as
opportunities to connect with people rather than as battles. It's

(01:09:05):
a perspective that reflects the best instinct of sophisticated legal practice,
understanding that sustainable deals are built on relationships and mutual benefit,
not adversarial posturing. For lawyer's condition to view negotiations as
zero sum complex Whitcof's career offers a different template, one

(01:09:28):
where legal skills become tools for building trust and creating value. Now,
there was a personal tragedy in his life which is
mentioned here. In twenty eleveny son Andrew died from an overdose.
It was a devastating loss that reshaped his perspective on success, legacy,
and what truly matters. For years, Whitcock carried Andrew's star

(01:09:51):
of David Pendant, a tangible connection to his late son
and a reminder of life's fragility. That pendant would later
take on diplomatic significance with the Trump orchestrated Middle East
peace deal. Now, I don't want to run right through this,
so let me cut to a little further on are

(01:10:12):
recommended for reading, though in its entirety it's actually not
that long. Whitcoff's trajectory offers an interesting case study for
lawyers considering paths beyond traditional practice. His career demonstrates how
core legal competencies such as analytical reasoning, negotiation expertise, contract structuring,

(01:10:33):
and risk assessment can create extraordinary opportunities across diverse fields.
These are all skills central to successful lawyering. His transition
from law to real estate wasn't unusual for attorneys in
the eighties and the nineties, but few leveraged their legal
background as comprehensively. A few still went on to apply

(01:10:56):
those same skills, and fewer still went on to apply
those same skills to humanitarian diplomacy on the world stage.
As you read further, you'll discover how he got in
socially with the President Trump, and how he got the
position that he found himself in in trying to sort
out a deal with the Iranians before war broke out,

(01:11:21):
and the last meeting he had with the Iranians along
with Jared Kushner. By the way, in all of these,
because he's had a few meetings throughout the Middle East,
the last meeting was the one immediately prior to war
being declared, I'll leave the rest with you. Steve Whitcoff
wit koblef very easy to find. Well, I'll listen to

(01:11:41):
the to the interview with Levin again I recommended. I'm
just simply google Mark Levin and Steve Witcoff and you'll
get it. So that'll take us out for podcasts number
three hundred and nineteen. If you would like to correspond
with us, of course, very easy, right to Leyton at
newstalksb dot co dot nz or Carolyn at newstalksb dot

(01:12:04):
co dot NZID as I haven't said in a while,
send your complaints to her and your compliments if you
don't mind. So we shall return again very soon with
podcast number three hundred and twenty. Until then, as always,
thank you for listening and we will talk soon.

Speaker 3 (01:12:29):
Thank you for more from News Talks ed B.

Speaker 1 (01:12:32):
Listen live on air or online, and keep our shows
with you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio