December 26, 2024 • 30 mins
Host of ‘How to Money’ on KFI Joel Larsgaard joins Wayne to speak on holiday spending, tax season, and personal finance heading into 2025. The Walmart effect. Will Trump administration send troops to Mexico? The show closes with the host of ‘Later with Mo Kelly’ on KFI to talk about the latest movies and streaming entertainment including Squid Game 2.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're list Saints KFI AM six forty The Bill Handles
show on demand on the iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
App KFIM six forty Live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
This is the Bill Handle Show. Wayne resumes sitting in
Bill's on vacation. He's back after the new year, and
every Thursday at this time we love to talk to
Joel Larsgard. He hosts the show How to Money right
here on KFI Sundays from noon to two. You can
(00:27):
always get podcasts of that show on our website at
KFIM six forty dot com or on the iHeart Radio app,
and he's on social media at how to Money. Joel.
Welcome back to the show. Joel Larsgard, glad to be here.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Wayne.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
Hey, let's get right into this first bottom line, there's
all the talk of tariffs are coming. The new administration
will impose all kinds of terifts all over the place,
and that will cause inflation and just I don't think
there's enough time in the world to try to unpack
all of that. But bottom line, should people be stocking
(01:06):
up on anything or making major purchases right now because
tariffs are coming? If so, what things should we be
doing that.
Speaker 3 (01:17):
With Yeah, that's a good question.
Speaker 4 (01:19):
And there's been more inks billed kind of about the
potential incursion of tariffs onto our lives. And the truth is,
the way tariffs work, they get passed on right to companies.
Let's say the price of a washing machine goes up
or parts that you're the washing machine that a company
might be importing from overseas well, the company's not just
(01:39):
going to eat the extra expense, they're going to pass
out on to us. And so the washing machine example
is a real example from the first Trump administration and Washington,
a washing machine prices really did go up in price,
and so yeah, people were paying an extra fifty or
sixty bucks for a washer or a dryer, and the
same thing could be true of other things that we buy.
Speaker 3 (02:02):
Potentially a lot of things that we buy.
Speaker 4 (02:04):
It's just hard to know, right, It's hard to know
how much of the tariff talk is like political rhetoric,
how much of it is going to happen. And so
I think, you know, we've seen people like stocking up
let's say at the grocery store or something like that.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
I don't necessarily think that's a great idea.
Speaker 4 (02:22):
They're assuming, Hey, higher prices are coming down the pike,
why don't I frontload some of my grocery shopping. Now,
I think if there's like a great sale on something
you're totally going to use, that's when I'm okay with
frontloading a purchase. But just because of the promise of
certain tariffs, I think maybe some folks at least are overreacting.
And it's it's just really hard to kind of make
a buying decision based on vapor policy, right, like kind
(02:45):
of like vapor where it's not it's not quite real.
It's been talked about, but we just don't know the
extent of the impact that it's going to have.
Speaker 2 (02:52):
Okay, So that was that was the wise answer. It
sounds like that was a correct answer. It doesn't. Unfortunately,
now I don't know if I should buy.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
Some or not.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
Well, okay, I'll say this.
Speaker 4 (03:03):
So there's one there's one place where I think some
of the Trump promises should have an impact on buying
decisions and so, and that specific thing is electric vehicles.
So some folks have said, oh, I'm thinking about buying
a car next year, should I frontload that purchase? And
I think, well, one I want people to buy used
cars anyway for the most part, because they're so much cheaper.
(03:26):
But if you said, hey, listen entering, I don't know.
I was thinking about getting it in February or March.
I think front loading that purchase to the next few
days before the end of the year, when you are
guaranteed to get the seventy five hundred dollars tax credit
for many vehicles for many makes and models, makes sense.
If it was something you were going to do anyway,
you were just going You're just moving that purchase forward
(03:47):
a little bit. I think because of the threat of
removing the ev tax credit. It just a seventy five
hundred dollars price difference is significant, so ensuring that you're
able to get while the getting is good, I think
it least on something like that, you might let the
rhetoric influence the timing of your purchase, not the fact
that you're actually making the purchase.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
Though, Okay, I got it. If it's something you're going
to buy anyway at some point, yeah you may, and
you can go ahead and buy it now, buy it now,
But that doesn't mean I have no need for a
new refrigerator whatsoever. But I'm going to buy a new
one just because I want to win. I want to
win some kind of game exactly.
Speaker 4 (04:24):
Some people who could find themselves in in kind of
that position where they're justifying purchases that they otherwise wouldn't
have made because you're like, well, the tariffs are coming,
so this is a smart money move, right, And it's like, well,
were you going to buy the item anyway? Or or
are you stocking up needlessly on something that isn't even
you know, in this tariff discussion. That's what I want
(04:46):
people to to not fall victim to.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
All right, good, So the mother of all purchases, and
we're talking about should you buy a thing? And the
mother of all purchases is a home And and I
understand you have some interesting information about some differences between
homeowners and people who are not homeowners.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (05:08):
So there were two really interesting studies that came out recently.
One finds that people live longer if they buy a
home by about six months, so homeowners versus renters, homeowners
are going to live roughly six months longer.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
You're adding six months to your life span.
Speaker 4 (05:25):
The other interesting statistic was that the media networth of
homeowners versus renters in the US, and it's a significant discrepancy.
So the average net worth of a renter in the
US is ten thousand dollars. The average net worth of
a homeowner is four hundred thousand dollars. And so you
might be tempted to hear those stats and say, well, gosh,
(05:48):
I want the fountain of youth, I want to live longer,
and I would like to have you have more money,
have higher net worth. Maybe I actould just go out
and buy a house tomorrow. I don't think it's quite
that simple, and we can talk about the nuances of that,
but it is kind of fascinating to see that, especially
like the longer life thing. I've never heard anything like
that before. The network discrepancy has kind of been around,
it's just grown, especially as the as the real estate
(06:11):
market has been flourishing. But it's it's fascinating to see
that that homeowners tend to come out on top.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
You know, I'm either going to now reveal myself to
be incredibly smart or super dumb, and I don't know
which one. I don't know which it is. But isn't
that I'm talking about the net worth differences between non
homeowners and homeowners and I assume most non homeowners were
(06:37):
thinking of renters or maybe people that live with their
parents or something. Isn't the difference there simply the market
value of the house that they have. Yes, I'm you're
I mean, of course, of course, everything else being equal,
wouldn't a homeowner have more net worth because they have
a home that gets counted. Your apartment doesn't get counted.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
That's right.
Speaker 4 (07:01):
I mean, you have an asset depending on when you
bought your home. Let's say you bought your home five, six, eight,
ten years ago. We're talking about substantial growth in equity
in that home over those years.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
So if you bought a home in twenty twelve, you, you.
Speaker 4 (07:16):
Know, almost thirteen years later, you're talking about that at
home having at least doubled in value, probably more.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
And so it is.
Speaker 4 (07:22):
It has been this forced method of savings for you,
and it's accumulated to your bottom line, so it's made
your network look pretty fantastic. The problem with just saying, oh,
then I should buy a home that's the best way
to get rich is that it's just not true when
you look at the average increase in home values over
time versus the average annual increase of.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
The stock market.
Speaker 4 (07:44):
The stock market is a better investment than a primary home,
and a primary home comes with other expenses as well.
Anybody who owns a home knows this, like, hey, my
insurance bill just skyrocketed, or oh my goodness, the gutters
need to be replaced, or I sprang a leak in
the basement, and you know, my neighbor the other day,
like literally had a pipe burst, and you don't want
to know what's flowing into his basement. It's terrible, right,
(08:06):
and the repairs are incredibly expensive. So it's not that
I'm against home ownership. I'm certainly not. But you don't
want to assume that owning a home is the best
way to grow your net worth. If you rent, and
you're paying a whole lot less for rent, and you
invest the difference between what you would have paid for
the mortgage and the repairs on a home that you
would buy, you'd come out in a much better position
(08:28):
over time growing that route and investing the difference than
you would putting that money into a primary home.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
Typically.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
All right, awesome, Joel, thank you so much. We love
talking to you. Your show is on Sunday's noon to two.
Right here on KFI how to Money and Social Media
at how to Money, Joel, We'll talk to you again soon.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
Sounds good. Thanks for having me Wayne.
Speaker 5 (08:51):
Hey, remember the it started in the nineties, really, when
Walmart was a big police topic and multiple people wrote books,
the titles of which were things like Walmart The High
(09:12):
Cost of Low Price or I don't know if you
read how Walmart is Destroying America and the world. They
were getting such bad publicity that they actually set up
a special department. They did this in two thousand and five,
(09:34):
I think, and a special department just to try to.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Improve their image. Now, eventually people came to Walmart's rescue,
and those people were a lot of economics professors and
other hoity toity and elite economics people, and they start
So you had the narrative first, which is Walmart moves
(10:01):
in and they shut down all my mom and pops
and they destroy the communities. Then the economics people came
and they said, no, no, no, no, you dummy. Yes,
it's true Walmart doesn't pay as much as some other retailers,
but it's not that big a deal because when Walmart
(10:23):
shows up, also you save money on your groceries. You
see it all works out, It evens out. Maybe there's
a tiny little bit of an effect, but it's not
that big of a deal. And you have to listen
to me because I have a patch on my jacket
and I'm smoking a briar pipe, so obviously I know
(10:45):
more about it than you. And that went on for
a while, and then some economists and social scientists decided
to use to try to use science to figure out
whether there's an effect or not from Walmart. So they're
(11:07):
two different papers that have come out, and they don't
have an agenda. They just they wanted to try to
get the best information and data they could and the
best methodology and try to figure out what is there
a Walmart effect, and if there is, what is it.
So the first one, which was published ole Bok three
(11:28):
months ago or so, got data going back to nineteen
sixty eight, a bunch of data about eighteen thousand specific
people all across the country. They sorted it for demographic similarity,
(11:51):
so they wanted to compare apples to apples, and they
created these two groups that were comparable demographic and then
they tracked various outcomes for those people, economic outcomes, health outcomes,
morbidity and all of it. And it's the first time
(12:13):
that you've been able to do the same thing as
a clinical trial for a medicine, but for an economic
question like this, because you know what happens with a
clinical trial. Two groups, one gets the actual drug, one
gets a placebo, and then you follow them for a
long time and you see what happens. This is kind
of what they were doing, but with people. And they
(12:34):
compared one group people that got a Walmart that's kind
of like getting the drug, and the other people didn't
get a Walmart, they got a placebo. And after they
crunched all of that, they found that ten years after
a Walmart opened in a community, the average household had
(12:56):
a six percent decline in income. Now you still have
the guy in the jacket with the patch and smoking
the pipe saying, well, maybe so, but they saved that
because there was a Walmart that they could shop at.
So now you have to figure out, oh gosh, how
do we find out how much people save by shopping
(13:19):
at a Walmart. Well, Walmart put out a study themselves
and in twenty twenty four equivalent dollars, Walmart itself found
that households who shop their save an average of thirty
one hundred dollars a year. So Walmart is certainly not
(13:42):
going to understate how much you save by shopping there.
I'm not saying they exaggerated it. I'm saying there's no
way they understated it. So that would mean it's still
a net loss if you If you the average income
declined because a Walmart opened up is at five thousand
dollars a year, and you save, according to Walmart, thirty
(14:04):
one hundred dollars a year. These are both twenty twenty
four dollars, then it is a net loss to the
average household. So there is a Walmart effect according to
that paper. Here's the problem, though, how do you know
Walmarts open up equally distributed across the country. Probably Walmart
(14:27):
chooses where to try to open a Walmart based on
whatever factors they look at. Maybe they look at this
area doesn't have a lot of union activity going on,
or maybe they look at something else. So how do
you now you got to go, Well, how do we
know there are all all kinds of parts of the
country that are getting Walmarts and other parts of the
(14:47):
country that never get a Walmart. And this has something
to do not with Walmart. But whatever the reasons Walmart
chooses to go into a community, it's those reasons. The
same reasons are why the happens. It doesn't really have
to do with Walmart. Well, there's another paper that came
out that did an analysis where they were because how
(15:08):
would you compare. Here's what they did pretty smart. Let's
compare places that got a Walmart with places where Walmart
wanted to go but wasn't able to go. Now we're
talking about areas that Walmart chose, and sometimes they were
able to open the store, and sometimes they were not
able to open the store. But they chose all of
(15:31):
these areas and they found the same thing. And it's
not hard to understand because in a nutshell, it's not
just that Walmart comes in and has low prices and
undercuts the competitors, and the mom and pop and the
regional change have to go out of business and then
all you have is Walmart and that's the only place
(15:53):
you have to work in some communities becomes Walmart. But
it's also this Walmart makes their supple sell to them
at a reduced cost. That's how their prices are lower.
If you're a supplier in the community. You have to
cut your price, you go out of business. The people
(16:14):
who worked for you, they didn't have anything to do
with Walmart directly. It's just you made a product that
you sold to Walmart. Now you're out of business. Jobs
are lost from your business, and you switch in your
community from not having local employers who produce things because
(16:36):
it's all coming in from China now because it's all
going to Walmart. So, according to these two papers, there
is a Walmart effect. I don't know that that makes
Walmart evil. I mean it may make capitalism a little
bit evil. I don't think Walmart is singular in this
as to these issues, but I don't know that they're
(16:57):
the savior of any particular community at all. This topic
of discussion does involve Mexico in a big way. During
the campaign, now President elect Donald Trump talked about many
many things, and a lot of them had to do
with Mexico. For example, he said he would put twenty
(17:19):
five percent tariffs on a lot of Mexico's exports here,
like tomatoes and avocados and tequila and car parts. Only
one of those is not recommended as an ingredient in
a drink. And also said that maybe we would send
(17:42):
troops into Mexico to fight the drug cartels. The idea
being Mexico is not able to get a handle on
these cartels, so we might use and he said, this
is a quote, He said, we'll use special forces, iber warfare,
and other covert and overt actions to inflict maximum damage
(18:06):
on cartel leadership, infrastructure, and operations. Okay, cyber warfare fine
with me, should be fine with most people. Do you
care if we act into the cartel's computers? Covert overt
actions could be anything. So I don't know what to
make of that special Forces. Here's where it gets dicey.
(18:30):
Do you send troops into Mexico to fight cartels without
Mexico giving you permission to do it? As a general proposition,
the answer is no. You don't send your troops into
another country to fight somebody without the permission of that country.
(18:50):
Is this a special case because of who we're talking about?
These cartels that are so violent and so really disturbingly
violent and and can't be stopped by the Mexican government.
So he said all these things, and it was seen
as more bluster than an actual plan by many. But
(19:14):
now he has said who he would appoint to be
the ambassador to Mexico. And because of who it is,
people who formerly said, oh, he's just, you know, saying
some stuff are now saying, oh, he may be dead
serious about sending US troops into Mexico. The guy is
Ronald D. Johnson. I believe there is a congress person
(19:36):
named Ronald Johnson. This is not him. This is a
different guy. This is a former military guy, a former
Green Beret and also a former official with the CIA,
also a former ambassador to El Salvador, a country not
immune from a violence problem with the gangs there. And
(19:59):
when he was the ambassador to El Salvador, this guy Johnson,
he supported the president of El Salvador big time all
the policies, and you may recall a lot of controversy
as the government of El Salvador went to crack down
on the gangs. They were accused of a lot of
human rights abuses. But also, which is one thing where
you kind of go, I mean, I'd like to be
(20:21):
the most the most progressive guy on the block, maybe,
but I kind of go, well, human rights abuses, but
it's gangs that you're like the rights you're abusing are
those of gangs. I don't know. I don't know how
upset I am about that. I don't know where it's
prioritized on my list of things to worry about. But also,
(20:43):
the president El Salvador was known for, you know, cracking
down on any dissent, which seems decidedly Unamerican, but then again,
it's not the United States anyway. He was into all
that stuff. Ronald Johnson now he's going to be the
ambassad to Mexico. So the idea is he's a guy
(21:03):
who would be totally into something like having troops sent
into Mexico, and he's a guy who might really press
the President of Mexico hard to allow it. Now, the
thing is this, Okay, if the concern is, what if
we send an ambassador over there and he successfully pressures
(21:28):
the President of Mexico Hardye Scheinbaum to allow US troops
to go in and fight the cartel, Well, then he
was able to convince somebody to allow something. Would we
send troops without their permission? Though, that's a completely different
(21:50):
kettle of fish. To send in troops and Mexico has
said no, and we send them anyway? That really could
create a massive problem worldwide. The world could very rapidly
turn against the United States. And we have a history
already with Mexico where we tried to do something where
(22:11):
we did not go into Mexico at all, and it
pissed them off. Don't know if you remember this. There
was a former Defense secretary of Mexico. His name was
Salvador Sanfuegos, and he was arrested at lax Here in
the United States on suspicion of drug trafficking, and the
(22:32):
government of Mexico at the time it was Lopez Obrador,
went crazy, what are you doing? You rested this guy,
He's a Mexican citizen. You don't have enough evidence. We
don't know what's going on. We hate this and they
forced they forced the Trump administration to send him back
to Mexico. And when he got back to Mexico, what
did they do. Did they put him in jail and said, yeah,
we should get to the bottom of whether or not
(22:54):
you're a big drug dealer. No, they gave him a
major military award. And it really hurt US Mexico relations
and it made it much more difficult for our DEA
to work with the authorities in Mexico, So there's already
some history when we did not send any troops into
the country. If we were to do that, it would
(23:16):
probably be game over for any kind of friendly relationship
with Mexico, which I'm well o. I already hear some
of you going, yeah, who needs it? Joining me now
as he does every Thursday on this show, the host
of Later with Mo Kelly from seven to ten pm
(23:37):
Monday through Friday on KFI. This is earlier with Moe Kelly. Obviously, Mo.
Speaker 6 (23:45):
How are you good morning, Wayne, Happy holidays, post merry Christmas,
a second day of Hanaka, second day of Honika.
Speaker 3 (23:53):
If I'm not mistaken, how are you, sir?
Speaker 2 (23:56):
Good? All of that is correct what you said. I
gotta give it to you.
Speaker 6 (24:00):
It's always good to talk to you, just because we
need to talk just more often.
Speaker 2 (24:04):
Oh oh, I agree, I agree. Maybe sometime later today
we can have a talk off the air.
Speaker 3 (24:10):
As well, Yes, definitely, but also on the air. Now.
Speaker 2 (24:14):
People may not know that we used to be adjacent
to each other on the weekends. You had a show
on the weekends. I had a show on the weekends,
and you were better than me. So your show was first,
and then I came on after you or or I
guess you opened for me, would be any other way
to say it.
Speaker 3 (24:34):
Now, I owe all my first tests to you. No.
Speaker 6 (24:38):
No, If you remember you were the first person to
bring me on the air at KFI when you informally
interviewed me, oh yeah, I.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
Mean I didn't know it was the first time or anything.
Speaker 3 (24:50):
I do remember that was first time. Yeah, the thirteen
years ago.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
But yes, well kudos to me.
Speaker 3 (24:58):
Yes, you get all the code, all of it.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
H thank you, You're a very sweet man. We'll talk.
So squid Game. This was a huge phenomenon, and now
it's back for season two. There are already some reviews
coming out about it. What are we looking for with
squid Game season two? And also, if I'm a person
(25:22):
who isn't though I don't remember anything about squid Game one,
do I need to go watch squid Game one or
can I jump right into squid Game two.
Speaker 6 (25:32):
That's a great question, and here's a semi great answer.
I would say no, because the beauty of the first
season a squid Game was you went in completely dark
line hopefully you did, and you didn't know, and you
let the whole series unfurl itself in real time, and
so you got to find out as you went along.
From what I understand, this season is much the same,
(25:54):
except that you kind of know and the lead character,
protagonist kind of knows what's going on, and I don't
know if it's going to have the same type of
magic or surprise. We do know that season two is
only seven episodes long, and there is going to be
a third and final season, but in such a truncated season,
it's not going to have all the magic and wonder
(26:15):
that the first season did, all right, So just in.
Speaker 2 (26:19):
Case people don't know, generally, squid Game is about a
group of super rich evil people who recruit regular people
to compete for a tremendous amount of money, life changing
amount of money by subjecting them to different weird games
that are actually deadly, which is to say, if you lose,
(26:40):
you die, and somebody wins. At the end of season one,
there's a guy who wins, and if I understand it right,
he comes back now to play again. But number one,
he's got huge amounts of money because he won the
first time, and his intent is to intrait and try
(27:01):
to shut it all down from the inside. Is that
somewhat accurate.
Speaker 3 (27:06):
Yes, that is exactly accurate.
Speaker 6 (27:08):
I was trying to hold back some of the details
because I think a lot of people, or if you're
some of the people who have not seen season one,
part of the magic is not revealing everything which is
going on. But you kind of know season two, episode
one what is going on, and he's going through the
game again, So it's not going to have the type
(27:29):
of reveal or surprise with the exception of different games
and different players.
Speaker 2 (27:34):
So here's what I'm assuming. You can't use the surprise
of revealing over the course of a season what's going
on right now. So instead are they going to amp
up the violence or the gore or the intensity of
the thing instead?
Speaker 6 (27:54):
Yes, Yes, from what I understand, the episodes just dropped
hours ago and all of the all of them are available.
You can watch all of season two today if you want,
which I plan to do. But it's supposed to be darker,
it's supposed to be more violent, more tense, if you
could believe that after season one. But yes, they have
to balance out the fact that no one is completely
(28:16):
unaware of what's going on anymore.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
I would also say, if you know a ton about spoilers,
and this isn't a spoiler because I haven't seen it
and I don't know, but you did say it's commonly
known there will be a third season.
Speaker 3 (28:30):
Yes, they have an next year.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
Okay, So by announcing there will be a third season,
I believe we can assume this guy doesn't manage to
shut it all down.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
Absolutely correct.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
Yeah, so then knowing there's a season three, does that
not take some of the tension out, at least of
his quest to shut it down if we know he
can't possibly completely shut it down because they need season three?
Speaker 6 (29:01):
For me, it does for me, it absolutely does, because
the stakes cannot be the same. Now, can we be
introduced to characters that we may feel emotionally more attached
to and hope that he or she or they will
survive to the end of the season. Of course, but
we know that the story is not going to end
or be resolved this season.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
All right, Hey, do you want to say anything about
what you'll be talking about tonight on your show Later
with mo Kelly starting at seven pm.
Speaker 6 (29:30):
Sure, we're gonna go a little bit deeper into Squid
Game season two. I will have beinge watched all of
it by then, and also we'll talk about some of
the best and worst movies of twenty twenty four.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
Quickly. Just a huge thumbs up or a huge thumbs
down or something in between. On the movie The Substance.
Speaker 3 (29:51):
I don't do horror, but Mark Ronner.
Speaker 6 (29:55):
But Mark Ronner, who is our anchor, did a review
for it, and he thought it was fantastic.
Speaker 3 (30:00):
I'm being serious.
Speaker 6 (30:01):
I try to stay away from horror because it impacts
my sleep.
Speaker 3 (30:05):
And I'm just not the guy for it. I see.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
All right, you're a gentive soul.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
Yes, all right, buddy, good to.
Speaker 2 (30:12):
Talk to you. Hey, are you here next week for
your segment as well?
Speaker 3 (30:16):
I am here. What is next Thursday? Is that the second? Yes, yes,
I'll be back.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
Oh fantastic. All right, we'll talk to you then. Thank
you very much, sir.
Speaker 3 (30:27):
Bye, Wayne, There.
Speaker 2 (30:29):
Goes Moe, Here goes me. It's KFI AM six forty
live everywhere on the Iheartradiot.
Speaker 1 (30:36):
You've been listening to the Bill Handle Show. Catch my
show Monday through Friday six am to nine am, and
anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
You're list Saints KFI AM six forty The Bill Handles
show on demand on the iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
App KFIM six forty Live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
This is the Bill Handle Show. Wayne resumes sitting in
Bill's on vacation. He's back after the new year, and
every Thursday at this time we love to talk to
Joel Larsgard. He hosts the show How to Money right
here on KFI Sundays from noon to two. You can
(00:27):
always get podcasts of that show on our website at
KFIM six forty dot com or on the iHeart Radio app,
and he's on social media at how to Money. Joel.
Welcome back to the show. Joel Larsgard, glad to be here.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Wayne.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
Hey, let's get right into this first bottom line, there's
all the talk of tariffs are coming. The new administration
will impose all kinds of terifts all over the place,
and that will cause inflation and just I don't think
there's enough time in the world to try to unpack
all of that. But bottom line, should people be stocking
(01:06):
up on anything or making major purchases right now because
tariffs are coming? If so, what things should we be
doing that.
Speaker 3 (01:17):
With Yeah, that's a good question.
Speaker 4 (01:19):
And there's been more inks billed kind of about the
potential incursion of tariffs onto our lives. And the truth is,
the way tariffs work, they get passed on right to companies.
Let's say the price of a washing machine goes up
or parts that you're the washing machine that a company
might be importing from overseas well, the company's not just
(01:39):
going to eat the extra expense, they're going to pass
out on to us. And so the washing machine example
is a real example from the first Trump administration and Washington,
a washing machine prices really did go up in price,
and so yeah, people were paying an extra fifty or
sixty bucks for a washer or a dryer, and the
same thing could be true of other things that we buy.
Speaker 3 (02:02):
Potentially a lot of things that we buy.
Speaker 4 (02:04):
It's just hard to know, right, It's hard to know
how much of the tariff talk is like political rhetoric,
how much of it is going to happen. And so
I think, you know, we've seen people like stocking up
let's say at the grocery store or something like that.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
I don't necessarily think that's a great idea.
Speaker 4 (02:22):
They're assuming, Hey, higher prices are coming down the pike,
why don't I frontload some of my grocery shopping. Now,
I think if there's like a great sale on something
you're totally going to use, that's when I'm okay with
frontloading a purchase. But just because of the promise of
certain tariffs, I think maybe some folks at least are overreacting.
And it's it's just really hard to kind of make
a buying decision based on vapor policy, right, like kind
(02:45):
of like vapor where it's not it's not quite real.
It's been talked about, but we just don't know the
extent of the impact that it's going to have.
Speaker 2 (02:52):
Okay, So that was that was the wise answer. It
sounds like that was a correct answer. It doesn't. Unfortunately,
now I don't know if I should buy.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
Some or not.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
Well, okay, I'll say this.
Speaker 4 (03:03):
So there's one there's one place where I think some
of the Trump promises should have an impact on buying
decisions and so, and that specific thing is electric vehicles.
So some folks have said, oh, I'm thinking about buying
a car next year, should I frontload that purchase? And
I think, well, one I want people to buy used
cars anyway for the most part, because they're so much cheaper.
(03:26):
But if you said, hey, listen entering, I don't know.
I was thinking about getting it in February or March.
I think front loading that purchase to the next few
days before the end of the year, when you are
guaranteed to get the seventy five hundred dollars tax credit
for many vehicles for many makes and models, makes sense.
If it was something you were going to do anyway,
you were just going You're just moving that purchase forward
(03:47):
a little bit. I think because of the threat of
removing the ev tax credit. It just a seventy five
hundred dollars price difference is significant, so ensuring that you're
able to get while the getting is good, I think
it least on something like that, you might let the
rhetoric influence the timing of your purchase, not the fact
that you're actually making the purchase.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
Though, Okay, I got it. If it's something you're going
to buy anyway at some point, yeah you may, and
you can go ahead and buy it now, buy it now,
But that doesn't mean I have no need for a
new refrigerator whatsoever. But I'm going to buy a new
one just because I want to win. I want to
win some kind of game exactly.
Speaker 4 (04:24):
Some people who could find themselves in in kind of
that position where they're justifying purchases that they otherwise wouldn't
have made because you're like, well, the tariffs are coming,
so this is a smart money move, right, And it's like, well,
were you going to buy the item anyway? Or or
are you stocking up needlessly on something that isn't even
you know, in this tariff discussion. That's what I want
(04:46):
people to to not fall victim to.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
All right, good, So the mother of all purchases, and
we're talking about should you buy a thing? And the
mother of all purchases is a home And and I
understand you have some interesting information about some differences between
homeowners and people who are not homeowners.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (05:08):
So there were two really interesting studies that came out recently.
One finds that people live longer if they buy a
home by about six months, so homeowners versus renters, homeowners
are going to live roughly six months longer.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
You're adding six months to your life span.
Speaker 4 (05:25):
The other interesting statistic was that the media networth of
homeowners versus renters in the US, and it's a significant discrepancy.
So the average net worth of a renter in the
US is ten thousand dollars. The average net worth of
a homeowner is four hundred thousand dollars. And so you
might be tempted to hear those stats and say, well, gosh,
(05:48):
I want the fountain of youth, I want to live longer,
and I would like to have you have more money,
have higher net worth. Maybe I actould just go out
and buy a house tomorrow. I don't think it's quite
that simple, and we can talk about the nuances of that,
but it is kind of fascinating to see that, especially
like the longer life thing. I've never heard anything like
that before. The network discrepancy has kind of been around,
it's just grown, especially as the as the real estate
(06:11):
market has been flourishing. But it's it's fascinating to see
that that homeowners tend to come out on top.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
You know, I'm either going to now reveal myself to
be incredibly smart or super dumb, and I don't know
which one. I don't know which it is. But isn't
that I'm talking about the net worth differences between non
homeowners and homeowners and I assume most non homeowners were
(06:37):
thinking of renters or maybe people that live with their
parents or something. Isn't the difference there simply the market
value of the house that they have. Yes, I'm you're
I mean, of course, of course, everything else being equal,
wouldn't a homeowner have more net worth because they have
a home that gets counted. Your apartment doesn't get counted.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
That's right.
Speaker 4 (07:01):
I mean, you have an asset depending on when you
bought your home. Let's say you bought your home five, six, eight,
ten years ago. We're talking about substantial growth in equity
in that home over those years.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
So if you bought a home in twenty twelve, you, you.
Speaker 4 (07:16):
Know, almost thirteen years later, you're talking about that at
home having at least doubled in value, probably more.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
And so it is.
Speaker 4 (07:22):
It has been this forced method of savings for you,
and it's accumulated to your bottom line, so it's made
your network look pretty fantastic. The problem with just saying, oh,
then I should buy a home that's the best way
to get rich is that it's just not true when
you look at the average increase in home values over
time versus the average annual increase of.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
The stock market.
Speaker 4 (07:44):
The stock market is a better investment than a primary home,
and a primary home comes with other expenses as well.
Anybody who owns a home knows this, like, hey, my
insurance bill just skyrocketed, or oh my goodness, the gutters
need to be replaced, or I sprang a leak in
the basement, and you know, my neighbor the other day,
like literally had a pipe burst, and you don't want
to know what's flowing into his basement. It's terrible, right,
(08:06):
and the repairs are incredibly expensive. So it's not that
I'm against home ownership. I'm certainly not. But you don't
want to assume that owning a home is the best
way to grow your net worth. If you rent, and
you're paying a whole lot less for rent, and you
invest the difference between what you would have paid for
the mortgage and the repairs on a home that you
would buy, you'd come out in a much better position
(08:28):
over time growing that route and investing the difference than
you would putting that money into a primary home.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
Typically.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
All right, awesome, Joel, thank you so much. We love
talking to you. Your show is on Sunday's noon to two.
Right here on KFI how to Money and Social Media
at how to Money, Joel, We'll talk to you again soon.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
Sounds good. Thanks for having me Wayne.
Speaker 5 (08:51):
Hey, remember the it started in the nineties, really, when
Walmart was a big police topic and multiple people wrote books,
the titles of which were things like Walmart The High
(09:12):
Cost of Low Price or I don't know if you
read how Walmart is Destroying America and the world. They
were getting such bad publicity that they actually set up
a special department. They did this in two thousand and five,
(09:34):
I think, and a special department just to try to.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Improve their image. Now, eventually people came to Walmart's rescue,
and those people were a lot of economics professors and
other hoity toity and elite economics people, and they start
So you had the narrative first, which is Walmart moves
(10:01):
in and they shut down all my mom and pops
and they destroy the communities. Then the economics people came
and they said, no, no, no, no, you dummy. Yes,
it's true Walmart doesn't pay as much as some other retailers,
but it's not that big a deal because when Walmart
(10:23):
shows up, also you save money on your groceries. You
see it all works out, It evens out. Maybe there's
a tiny little bit of an effect, but it's not
that big of a deal. And you have to listen
to me because I have a patch on my jacket
and I'm smoking a briar pipe, so obviously I know
(10:45):
more about it than you. And that went on for
a while, and then some economists and social scientists decided
to use to try to use science to figure out
whether there's an effect or not from Walmart. So they're
(11:07):
two different papers that have come out, and they don't
have an agenda. They just they wanted to try to
get the best information and data they could and the
best methodology and try to figure out what is there
a Walmart effect, and if there is, what is it.
So the first one, which was published ole Bok three
(11:28):
months ago or so, got data going back to nineteen
sixty eight, a bunch of data about eighteen thousand specific
people all across the country. They sorted it for demographic similarity,
(11:51):
so they wanted to compare apples to apples, and they
created these two groups that were comparable demographic and then
they tracked various outcomes for those people, economic outcomes, health outcomes,
morbidity and all of it. And it's the first time
(12:13):
that you've been able to do the same thing as
a clinical trial for a medicine, but for an economic
question like this, because you know what happens with a
clinical trial. Two groups, one gets the actual drug, one
gets a placebo, and then you follow them for a
long time and you see what happens. This is kind
of what they were doing, but with people. And they
(12:34):
compared one group people that got a Walmart that's kind
of like getting the drug, and the other people didn't
get a Walmart, they got a placebo. And after they
crunched all of that, they found that ten years after
a Walmart opened in a community, the average household had
(12:56):
a six percent decline in income. Now you still have
the guy in the jacket with the patch and smoking
the pipe saying, well, maybe so, but they saved that
because there was a Walmart that they could shop at.
So now you have to figure out, oh gosh, how
do we find out how much people save by shopping
(13:19):
at a Walmart. Well, Walmart put out a study themselves
and in twenty twenty four equivalent dollars, Walmart itself found
that households who shop their save an average of thirty
one hundred dollars a year. So Walmart is certainly not
(13:42):
going to understate how much you save by shopping there.
I'm not saying they exaggerated it. I'm saying there's no
way they understated it. So that would mean it's still
a net loss if you If you the average income
declined because a Walmart opened up is at five thousand
dollars a year, and you save, according to Walmart, thirty
(14:04):
one hundred dollars a year. These are both twenty twenty
four dollars, then it is a net loss to the
average household. So there is a Walmart effect according to
that paper. Here's the problem, though, how do you know
Walmarts open up equally distributed across the country. Probably Walmart
(14:27):
chooses where to try to open a Walmart based on
whatever factors they look at. Maybe they look at this
area doesn't have a lot of union activity going on,
or maybe they look at something else. So how do
you now you got to go, Well, how do we
know there are all all kinds of parts of the
country that are getting Walmarts and other parts of the
(14:47):
country that never get a Walmart. And this has something
to do not with Walmart. But whatever the reasons Walmart
chooses to go into a community, it's those reasons. The
same reasons are why the happens. It doesn't really have
to do with Walmart. Well, there's another paper that came
out that did an analysis where they were because how
(15:08):
would you compare. Here's what they did pretty smart. Let's
compare places that got a Walmart with places where Walmart
wanted to go but wasn't able to go. Now we're
talking about areas that Walmart chose, and sometimes they were
able to open the store, and sometimes they were not
able to open the store. But they chose all of
(15:31):
these areas and they found the same thing. And it's
not hard to understand because in a nutshell, it's not
just that Walmart comes in and has low prices and
undercuts the competitors, and the mom and pop and the
regional change have to go out of business and then
all you have is Walmart and that's the only place
(15:53):
you have to work in some communities becomes Walmart. But
it's also this Walmart makes their supple sell to them
at a reduced cost. That's how their prices are lower.
If you're a supplier in the community. You have to
cut your price, you go out of business. The people
(16:14):
who worked for you, they didn't have anything to do
with Walmart directly. It's just you made a product that
you sold to Walmart. Now you're out of business. Jobs
are lost from your business, and you switch in your
community from not having local employers who produce things because
(16:36):
it's all coming in from China now because it's all
going to Walmart. So, according to these two papers, there
is a Walmart effect. I don't know that that makes
Walmart evil. I mean it may make capitalism a little
bit evil. I don't think Walmart is singular in this
as to these issues, but I don't know that they're
(16:57):
the savior of any particular community at all. This topic
of discussion does involve Mexico in a big way. During
the campaign, now President elect Donald Trump talked about many
many things, and a lot of them had to do
with Mexico. For example, he said he would put twenty
(17:19):
five percent tariffs on a lot of Mexico's exports here,
like tomatoes and avocados and tequila and car parts. Only
one of those is not recommended as an ingredient in
a drink. And also said that maybe we would send
(17:42):
troops into Mexico to fight the drug cartels. The idea
being Mexico is not able to get a handle on
these cartels, so we might use and he said, this
is a quote, He said, we'll use special forces, iber warfare,
and other covert and overt actions to inflict maximum damage
(18:06):
on cartel leadership, infrastructure, and operations. Okay, cyber warfare fine
with me, should be fine with most people. Do you
care if we act into the cartel's computers? Covert overt
actions could be anything. So I don't know what to
make of that special Forces. Here's where it gets dicey.
(18:30):
Do you send troops into Mexico to fight cartels without
Mexico giving you permission to do it? As a general proposition,
the answer is no. You don't send your troops into
another country to fight somebody without the permission of that country.
(18:50):
Is this a special case because of who we're talking about?
These cartels that are so violent and so really disturbingly
violent and and can't be stopped by the Mexican government.
So he said all these things, and it was seen
as more bluster than an actual plan by many. But
(19:14):
now he has said who he would appoint to be
the ambassador to Mexico. And because of who it is,
people who formerly said, oh, he's just, you know, saying
some stuff are now saying, oh, he may be dead
serious about sending US troops into Mexico. The guy is
Ronald D. Johnson. I believe there is a congress person
(19:36):
named Ronald Johnson. This is not him. This is a
different guy. This is a former military guy, a former
Green Beret and also a former official with the CIA,
also a former ambassador to El Salvador, a country not
immune from a violence problem with the gangs there. And
(19:59):
when he was the ambassador to El Salvador, this guy Johnson,
he supported the president of El Salvador big time all
the policies, and you may recall a lot of controversy
as the government of El Salvador went to crack down
on the gangs. They were accused of a lot of
human rights abuses. But also, which is one thing where
you kind of go, I mean, I'd like to be
(20:21):
the most the most progressive guy on the block, maybe,
but I kind of go, well, human rights abuses, but
it's gangs that you're like the rights you're abusing are
those of gangs. I don't know. I don't know how
upset I am about that. I don't know where it's
prioritized on my list of things to worry about. But also,
(20:43):
the president El Salvador was known for, you know, cracking
down on any dissent, which seems decidedly Unamerican, but then again,
it's not the United States anyway. He was into all
that stuff. Ronald Johnson now he's going to be the
ambassad to Mexico. So the idea is he's a guy
(21:03):
who would be totally into something like having troops sent
into Mexico, and he's a guy who might really press
the President of Mexico hard to allow it. Now, the
thing is this, Okay, if the concern is, what if
we send an ambassador over there and he successfully pressures
(21:28):
the President of Mexico Hardye Scheinbaum to allow US troops
to go in and fight the cartel, Well, then he
was able to convince somebody to allow something. Would we
send troops without their permission? Though, that's a completely different
(21:50):
kettle of fish. To send in troops and Mexico has
said no, and we send them anyway? That really could
create a massive problem worldwide. The world could very rapidly
turn against the United States. And we have a history
already with Mexico where we tried to do something where
(22:11):
we did not go into Mexico at all, and it
pissed them off. Don't know if you remember this. There
was a former Defense secretary of Mexico. His name was
Salvador Sanfuegos, and he was arrested at lax Here in
the United States on suspicion of drug trafficking, and the
(22:32):
government of Mexico at the time it was Lopez Obrador,
went crazy, what are you doing? You rested this guy,
He's a Mexican citizen. You don't have enough evidence. We
don't know what's going on. We hate this and they
forced they forced the Trump administration to send him back
to Mexico. And when he got back to Mexico, what
did they do. Did they put him in jail and said, yeah,
we should get to the bottom of whether or not
(22:54):
you're a big drug dealer. No, they gave him a
major military award. And it really hurt US Mexico relations
and it made it much more difficult for our DEA
to work with the authorities in Mexico, So there's already
some history when we did not send any troops into
the country. If we were to do that, it would
(23:16):
probably be game over for any kind of friendly relationship
with Mexico, which I'm well o. I already hear some
of you going, yeah, who needs it? Joining me now
as he does every Thursday on this show, the host
of Later with Mo Kelly from seven to ten pm
(23:37):
Monday through Friday on KFI. This is earlier with Moe Kelly. Obviously, Mo.
Speaker 6 (23:45):
How are you good morning, Wayne, Happy holidays, post merry Christmas,
a second day of Hanaka, second day of Honika.
Speaker 3 (23:53):
If I'm not mistaken, how are you, sir?
Speaker 2 (23:56):
Good? All of that is correct what you said. I
gotta give it to you.
Speaker 6 (24:00):
It's always good to talk to you, just because we
need to talk just more often.
Speaker 2 (24:04):
Oh oh, I agree, I agree. Maybe sometime later today
we can have a talk off the air.
Speaker 3 (24:10):
As well, Yes, definitely, but also on the air. Now.
Speaker 2 (24:14):
People may not know that we used to be adjacent
to each other on the weekends. You had a show
on the weekends. I had a show on the weekends,
and you were better than me. So your show was first,
and then I came on after you or or I
guess you opened for me, would be any other way
to say it.
Speaker 3 (24:34):
Now, I owe all my first tests to you. No.
Speaker 6 (24:38):
No, If you remember you were the first person to
bring me on the air at KFI when you informally
interviewed me, oh yeah, I.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
Mean I didn't know it was the first time or anything.
Speaker 3 (24:50):
I do remember that was first time. Yeah, the thirteen
years ago.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
But yes, well kudos to me.
Speaker 3 (24:58):
Yes, you get all the code, all of it.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
H thank you, You're a very sweet man. We'll talk.
So squid Game. This was a huge phenomenon, and now
it's back for season two. There are already some reviews
coming out about it. What are we looking for with
squid Game season two? And also, if I'm a person
(25:22):
who isn't though I don't remember anything about squid Game one,
do I need to go watch squid Game one or
can I jump right into squid Game two.
Speaker 6 (25:32):
That's a great question, and here's a semi great answer.
I would say no, because the beauty of the first
season a squid Game was you went in completely dark
line hopefully you did, and you didn't know, and you
let the whole series unfurl itself in real time, and
so you got to find out as you went along.
From what I understand, this season is much the same,
(25:54):
except that you kind of know and the lead character,
protagonist kind of knows what's going on, and I don't
know if it's going to have the same type of
magic or surprise. We do know that season two is
only seven episodes long, and there is going to be
a third and final season, but in such a truncated season,
it's not going to have all the magic and wonder
(26:15):
that the first season did, all right, So just in.
Speaker 2 (26:19):
Case people don't know, generally, squid Game is about a
group of super rich evil people who recruit regular people
to compete for a tremendous amount of money, life changing
amount of money by subjecting them to different weird games
that are actually deadly, which is to say, if you lose,
(26:40):
you die, and somebody wins. At the end of season one,
there's a guy who wins, and if I understand it right,
he comes back now to play again. But number one,
he's got huge amounts of money because he won the
first time, and his intent is to intrait and try
(27:01):
to shut it all down from the inside. Is that
somewhat accurate.
Speaker 3 (27:06):
Yes, that is exactly accurate.
Speaker 6 (27:08):
I was trying to hold back some of the details
because I think a lot of people, or if you're
some of the people who have not seen season one,
part of the magic is not revealing everything which is
going on. But you kind of know season two, episode
one what is going on, and he's going through the
game again, So it's not going to have the type
(27:29):
of reveal or surprise with the exception of different games
and different players.
Speaker 2 (27:34):
So here's what I'm assuming. You can't use the surprise
of revealing over the course of a season what's going
on right now. So instead are they going to amp
up the violence or the gore or the intensity of
the thing instead?
Speaker 6 (27:54):
Yes, Yes, from what I understand, the episodes just dropped
hours ago and all of the all of them are available.
You can watch all of season two today if you want,
which I plan to do. But it's supposed to be darker,
it's supposed to be more violent, more tense, if you
could believe that after season one. But yes, they have
to balance out the fact that no one is completely
(28:16):
unaware of what's going on anymore.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
I would also say, if you know a ton about spoilers,
and this isn't a spoiler because I haven't seen it
and I don't know, but you did say it's commonly
known there will be a third season.
Speaker 3 (28:30):
Yes, they have an next year.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
Okay, So by announcing there will be a third season,
I believe we can assume this guy doesn't manage to
shut it all down.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
Absolutely correct.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
Yeah, so then knowing there's a season three, does that
not take some of the tension out, at least of
his quest to shut it down if we know he
can't possibly completely shut it down because they need season three?
Speaker 6 (29:01):
For me, it does for me, it absolutely does, because
the stakes cannot be the same. Now, can we be
introduced to characters that we may feel emotionally more attached
to and hope that he or she or they will
survive to the end of the season. Of course, but
we know that the story is not going to end
or be resolved this season.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
All right, Hey, do you want to say anything about
what you'll be talking about tonight on your show Later
with mo Kelly starting at seven pm.
Speaker 6 (29:30):
Sure, we're gonna go a little bit deeper into Squid
Game season two. I will have beinge watched all of
it by then, and also we'll talk about some of
the best and worst movies of twenty twenty four.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
Quickly. Just a huge thumbs up or a huge thumbs
down or something in between. On the movie The Substance.
Speaker 3 (29:51):
I don't do horror, but Mark Ronner.
Speaker 6 (29:55):
But Mark Ronner, who is our anchor, did a review
for it, and he thought it was fantastic.
Speaker 3 (30:00):
I'm being serious.
Speaker 6 (30:01):
I try to stay away from horror because it impacts
my sleep.
Speaker 3 (30:05):
And I'm just not the guy for it. I see.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
All right, you're a gentive soul.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
Yes, all right, buddy, good to.
Speaker 2 (30:12):
Talk to you. Hey, are you here next week for
your segment as well?
Speaker 3 (30:16):
I am here. What is next Thursday? Is that the second? Yes, yes,
I'll be back.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
Oh fantastic. All right, we'll talk to you then. Thank
you very much, sir.
Speaker 3 (30:27):
Bye, Wayne, There.
Speaker 2 (30:29):
Goes Moe, Here goes me. It's KFI AM six forty
live everywhere on the Iheartradiot.
Speaker 1 (30:36):
You've been listening to the Bill Handle Show. Catch my
show Monday through Friday six am to nine am, and
anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
The Bill Handel Show News
Popular Podcasts
True Crime Tonight
If you eat, sleep, and breathe true crime, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT is serving up your nightly fix. Five nights a week, KT STUDIOS & iHEART RADIO invite listeners to pull up a seat for an unfiltered look at the biggest cases making headlines, celebrity scandals, and the trials everyone is watching. With a mix of expert analysis, hot takes, and listener call-ins, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT goes beyond the headlines to uncover the twists, turns, and unanswered questions that keep us all obsessed—because, at TRUE CRIME TONIGHT, there’s a seat for everyone. Whether breaking down crime scene forensics, scrutinizing serial killers, or debating the most binge-worthy true crime docs, True Crime Tonight is the fresh, fast-paced, and slightly addictive home for true crime lovers.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.