November 13, 2025 • 12 mins
Host of ‘How to Money’ Joel Larsgaard joins the show to discuss Trump’s proposed 50-year mortgage idea, $2,000 tariff checks, and a new Visa/Mastercard settlement changing how credit cards will be accepted.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It is time for How to Money with Joel Larsgard.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
Joel heard every Sunday twelve to two pm right here
on KFI.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
His website is howdomoney dot com. All right, Joel, good.
Speaker 3 (00:11):
Morning, Hello Bill.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Oh quick question? All right?
Speaker 2 (00:15):
The President came up with something that was kind of interesting,
and in light of the insane mortgage rates and the
cost of financing a home, simply because the cost of
the cost of the home, he proposed a fifty year
mortgage instead of the standard thirty year mortgage. I've never
(00:35):
heard well, of course I've heard of a fifty year mortgage,
but I don't know if he was even ever offered
by the financial institutions. I think the thirty year worthy outside.
So your thoughts on this.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
I don't like it. I think it's a really bad idea.
Speaker 4 (00:48):
I think we're seeing the extension, the term extension of
debt products, and people keep making their are their own
worst enemies so much of the time when they're offered
an inferior debt product that keeps them in debt for longer.
And so if we just continue to offer people, hey,
why I mean, if fifty year mortgage, why not one
hundred year mortgage.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
You know, that's an argument.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
My friend Mark Tice, who had a company HMS Capital
I did commercials for, he actually argued for one hundred
year mortgage based on the fact that, well that time,
money was so cheap. And the fact is, no one
stays in their house anyway longer than seven or eight years.
So if you can get your payments as low as possible,
(01:33):
assuming you move every seven years or ten years, it
makes sense.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
And this is yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
You'll never own your home. You will never ever own
your home.
Speaker 4 (01:43):
So if you have one hundred your mortgage, or if
you have a fifty year mortgage, you're going to Yes,
you will lower your payments by a little bit. Let's
say on a five hundred thousand dollars house, which doesn't
really exist, you know, in this part of the country.
But let's just say on a five hundred thousand dollars house,
you go from a thirty year mortgage to a fifth
ffty year mortgage. You're going to increase the interest rates slightly,
and yes, you're going to decrease the monthly payment. But
(02:05):
let's say you move from that house eight years down
to the line. In one case, in the thirty year
mortgage case, you would have paid off at least a
chunk of that principal balance. If we're talking about a
fifty year mortgage, you're paying even more in interest, so
much less towards that principal balance. You move, well, you
would have been better off renting than having the fifty
year mortgage because you made such a small dent into
(02:27):
the principal balance of the loan.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
And the other fact which a lot of people don't understand,
which I hate, is that interest is front loaded. Yes,
and I hate that. You would think I would You
would think there'd be a law that wouldn't allow front
loaded interest, which means the interest payments are huge the
first few years of.
Speaker 4 (02:48):
The loan, which is why the longer you stay in
that in that home, right, at some point, just keep
paying off that loan is agreed if you have a
low interest rate.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
But yeah, I worry if.
Speaker 4 (03:00):
People are offered fifty or mortgages, even if they stay
in the home for ten or twelve years, they just
haven't made much of a dent in the mortgage. They're like,
all right, it's time to move. They sell the home,
They get to the closing table and they realize because
of real tor fees and the transaction costs of buying
and selling a home, like they're not walking away with
much at all, and so it's a it's just another
(03:24):
attempt to allow people to finance something that they can't
actually afford. That's going to keep them on the perpetual
debt treadmills. It's similar to kind of what we've seen
with car loans, where hey, let's bump it out to
seven years and then you know what, when you refinance,
you can get another seven year loan. And so people
are staying in car debt for eight, nine, ten years,
(03:45):
which is crazy, And the same thing is going to
happen with homes if mortgages are extended to fifty years.
I think it's just a terrible, a terrible, terrible idea.
And you know, keeping your mortgage around for as long
as you can when you have a three percent rate
is great, but think about where rates are now. I
don't think they're abnormally high historically, but it's certainly not
fun to have an eight percent, seven or eight percent
(04:06):
mortgage for fifty years either.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
When are we going to forget three percent money? At
what time in our lives were that that is, that
is history where we don't pay attention to it.
Speaker 4 (04:19):
I mean, I think, you know, it's the objects in
the rear view mirror closer than the impior whatever. I mean,
I think it still feels like I still remember those times.
But at some point, just like you know, the high
schoolers today don't remember nine eleven, they have no, they don't.
They don't remember when that happened. Whereas I was in
high school when it happened. I have a distinct memory
of exactly where I was when that event occurred. I
(04:41):
think the same thing is going to be true over time,
that people will not expect two and three percent mortgage
interest rates. But for now, like it's still it's still
not too far in the rearview mirror, and so people
are still like the six and a half percent rates.
They're hard to stomach, even though from a historical perspective
they're really not all that bad.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
No, I mean that historical Let's go back to the
Civil War era, all right, when you did have a mortgage,
when you borrowed to buy a house.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
Do you know what the interest rate was? I guess
six percent?
Speaker 4 (05:10):
Okay, But then you can go back to other other
points a few decades ago, and you're talking about I
mean even the point where my parents were buying their
first house and you were talking about double digit mid
double oh yeah, no during six percent industry.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Oh during the Jimmy Carter years. It was crazy. I
mean it was double digits. And you wonder, how does anybody,
how does anybody buy a home at twelve thirteen percent interest? Well,
it was creative financing, is what they did. It was
just all kinds of wild different machinations, all right.
Speaker 3 (05:43):
At some point though, I just worry.
Speaker 4 (05:44):
I just worry about all of the crafty, clever debt
products that people are that are afforded to us now.
And what it prevents is people from achieving any sort
of financial independence and any sort of margin in their lives.
And we were payment buyers to that, you know, to
the nth degree, and it just it disallows us from
(06:06):
really achieving any meaningful financial goals in our lives if
we live that way.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
Yeah. And when we had three percent money, borrowing money
made it was free money basically because you'll be making
five percent on your money and you'd be paying three percent.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
Sure, those days are gone, all right.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
So Joel the President decided that everybody in America is
going to get a tariff check, and and no one
knew that he was about to say that. And I'm
convinced that the President wakes up in the morning and decides, oh.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
Let's do this.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
Let's uh, we'll do a thirty percent tariff, and then
by noon it's now let's make it forty percent, and
then by dinner time, let's make it twenty two percent.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
I think that's exactly what happened here.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
And so he says, we want a two thousand dollars
per person tariff check.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
Let's talk about the's.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
Ability and how you would even do that, because who
is going to be able to get it?
Speaker 1 (07:08):
Kids, adults, households. When I don't get it.
Speaker 4 (07:13):
Some would call this flying by the seat of your
pants and throwing caution to the wind, and just like
making statements that you want to be true even if
they can't be or likely won't be. And in this
you know, this is while the Supreme Court is weighing
the legality of the tariffs to begin with the president's
(07:34):
ability to just say, yeah, forty percent tariffs on you Canada,
or eighty percent tariffs on you random island in the Pacific, right,
so he right now even just that ability for him
to create tariffs is legally dubious. And so then giving
rebate checks to Americans, which this is being I mean
the way that his people on his team are having
(07:57):
to talk about this because they weren't ready for it either.
Like the Treasury secretary was quoted he was basically saying, yeah,
I mean, it could be capped at like people who
have an income of one hundred thousand dollars. It could
just be these these tariff rebate checks that the President
talked about on true social could just be the tax
(08:18):
decreases that we're already seeing all the President's agenda.
Speaker 3 (08:21):
So this is his attempt to say.
Speaker 4 (08:23):
Maybe we've already kind of given those to you with
the big beautiful bill thing that passed. So maybe this
will be a check. Maybe it won't be like what
this is going to look. I just don't want people
to get their hopes up and spend the you know,
count their chickens before they hatch, assume they're getting a
two thousand dollars check when there's a decent chance they won't.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
Yeah, and on the tariff, And this is more political
than anything else. I think it's legitimate when we talk
about a balance of trade and we have to undo
that because a lot of countries has been very unfair
and I think the president is right about that, and
so they nail us, will nail them. And then there
are the other fun ones to Brazil tarriff because they're
(09:00):
going after Bolsonnaro, the former president that he likes, just
a friend of his. Okay, let's tear iff the hell
out of that country. Or Canada, let's tear if the
hell out of Canada.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
Why balance of trade.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Nope, they ran that ad that he wasn't comfortable with.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
I mean, it's pretty crazy.
Speaker 4 (09:20):
To trade policy via personal vendetta. Doesn't really make much
sense when you're talking about a country of three hundred
and fifty million people with a ton of economic importance worldwide.
And I get what you're getting at too, but I
also I have a trade and balance with the grocery
store that I go to. You know, I give them
money and they give me groceries, and guess what, we're
(09:42):
both happy with the way the deal is structured. And
so yeah, I think it's also okay to have trade
imbalances with certain countries as a matter of policy.
Speaker 3 (09:53):
I don't think that's necessary.
Speaker 4 (09:55):
It's not a bad thing, but I guess when we're
talking about promises of terror freebate checks like this is
just another one of those ideas that's floated around because
there's just so many of them and it's hard to
keep up because something new is hitting the headlines every
day or multiple times a day, and this is one
of those things that's just it's highly unlikely to happen.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
I think, yeah, we're in some tough financial times just
even understanding. One of the things you talked about is
the products, the credit products that are out there that
are exploding, and no one knows what the hell's going
on and what they mean and how far they go.
It was like the times when mortgages you would have
a single mortgage lender and then they combined them and
(10:38):
made the portfolio and slice them up, and no one
had any idea of who owned what. And it's just
a really complicated world and not getting any easier, is it.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
No, No, it's not. And I think that's that's why.
Speaker 4 (10:52):
Not to puff up my own importance, but I just
think that personal finance knowledge is even more necessary in
today's day and age because it's so confusing and people
are like, oh, buy now, pay later at checkout.
Speaker 3 (11:03):
This is why not like this obvious?
Speaker 4 (11:06):
I think we just assume that if it's offered to us,
that if somebody vetted it, and it must not be
terribly you know, we might be not probably not doing
something that's harming ourselves severely if we take advantage of that.
But we lose so much of our own optionality and
freedom the more we take advantage of some of these
more nefarious ways of taking on debt that are allowed
(11:29):
for us. And it's just all literally a new kind
of credit card offered by US bank that's attempting to
merge kind of the worlds of credit cards and buy
now and pay later and charging you a fee by
being able to delay essentially paying your credit card bill
by an extra month or two. And it's just getting
worse and worse, and the terms are getting less consumer friendly,
(11:51):
and we feel like the frogs sitting in the pot
of boiling water and it's getting hotter and hotter, and
we're just kind of oblivious to it in so many ways.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
Yeah, and by the way, just for the rest Joel,
when you said you're not blowing your own horn.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
Yes you are. That's precisely what you're doing.
Speaker 3 (12:07):
I'm so necessary right now, Bill, that's one's.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
Yeah, that's exactly my point. Congratulations, we can't live without you.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
That's all right. We'll do this again next week. I
have a good one, Joel, all right, you too, Bill,
It is time for How to Money with Joel Larsgard.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
Joel heard every Sunday twelve to two pm right here
on KFI.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
His website is howdomoney dot com. All right, Joel, good.
Speaker 3 (00:11):
Morning, Hello Bill.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Oh quick question? All right?
Speaker 2 (00:15):
The President came up with something that was kind of interesting,
and in light of the insane mortgage rates and the
cost of financing a home, simply because the cost of
the cost of the home, he proposed a fifty year
mortgage instead of the standard thirty year mortgage. I've never
(00:35):
heard well, of course I've heard of a fifty year mortgage,
but I don't know if he was even ever offered
by the financial institutions. I think the thirty year worthy outside.
So your thoughts on this.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
I don't like it. I think it's a really bad idea.
Speaker 4 (00:48):
I think we're seeing the extension, the term extension of
debt products, and people keep making their are their own
worst enemies so much of the time when they're offered
an inferior debt product that keeps them in debt for longer.
And so if we just continue to offer people, hey,
why I mean, if fifty year mortgage, why not one
hundred year mortgage.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
You know, that's an argument.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
My friend Mark Tice, who had a company HMS Capital
I did commercials for, he actually argued for one hundred
year mortgage based on the fact that, well that time,
money was so cheap. And the fact is, no one
stays in their house anyway longer than seven or eight years.
So if you can get your payments as low as possible,
(01:33):
assuming you move every seven years or ten years, it
makes sense.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
And this is yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
You'll never own your home. You will never ever own
your home.
Speaker 4 (01:43):
So if you have one hundred your mortgage, or if
you have a fifty year mortgage, you're going to Yes,
you will lower your payments by a little bit. Let's
say on a five hundred thousand dollars house, which doesn't
really exist, you know, in this part of the country.
But let's just say on a five hundred thousand dollars house,
you go from a thirty year mortgage to a fifth
ffty year mortgage. You're going to increase the interest rates slightly,
and yes, you're going to decrease the monthly payment. But
(02:05):
let's say you move from that house eight years down
to the line. In one case, in the thirty year
mortgage case, you would have paid off at least a
chunk of that principal balance. If we're talking about a
fifty year mortgage, you're paying even more in interest, so
much less towards that principal balance. You move, well, you
would have been better off renting than having the fifty
year mortgage because you made such a small dent into
(02:27):
the principal balance of the loan.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
And the other fact which a lot of people don't understand,
which I hate, is that interest is front loaded. Yes,
and I hate that. You would think I would You
would think there'd be a law that wouldn't allow front
loaded interest, which means the interest payments are huge the
first few years of.
Speaker 4 (02:48):
The loan, which is why the longer you stay in
that in that home, right, at some point, just keep
paying off that loan is agreed if you have a
low interest rate.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
But yeah, I worry if.
Speaker 4 (03:00):
People are offered fifty or mortgages, even if they stay
in the home for ten or twelve years, they just
haven't made much of a dent in the mortgage. They're like,
all right, it's time to move. They sell the home,
They get to the closing table and they realize because
of real tor fees and the transaction costs of buying
and selling a home, like they're not walking away with
much at all, and so it's a it's just another
(03:24):
attempt to allow people to finance something that they can't
actually afford. That's going to keep them on the perpetual
debt treadmills. It's similar to kind of what we've seen
with car loans, where hey, let's bump it out to
seven years and then you know what, when you refinance,
you can get another seven year loan. And so people
are staying in car debt for eight, nine, ten years,
(03:45):
which is crazy, And the same thing is going to
happen with homes if mortgages are extended to fifty years.
I think it's just a terrible, a terrible, terrible idea.
And you know, keeping your mortgage around for as long
as you can when you have a three percent rate
is great, but think about where rates are now. I
don't think they're abnormally high historically, but it's certainly not
fun to have an eight percent, seven or eight percent
(04:06):
mortgage for fifty years either.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
When are we going to forget three percent money? At
what time in our lives were that that is, that
is history where we don't pay attention to it.
Speaker 4 (04:19):
I mean, I think, you know, it's the objects in
the rear view mirror closer than the impior whatever. I mean,
I think it still feels like I still remember those times.
But at some point, just like you know, the high
schoolers today don't remember nine eleven, they have no, they don't.
They don't remember when that happened. Whereas I was in
high school when it happened. I have a distinct memory
of exactly where I was when that event occurred. I
(04:41):
think the same thing is going to be true over time,
that people will not expect two and three percent mortgage
interest rates. But for now, like it's still it's still
not too far in the rearview mirror, and so people
are still like the six and a half percent rates.
They're hard to stomach, even though from a historical perspective
they're really not all that bad.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
No, I mean that historical Let's go back to the
Civil War era, all right, when you did have a mortgage,
when you borrowed to buy a house.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
Do you know what the interest rate was? I guess
six percent?
Speaker 4 (05:10):
Okay, But then you can go back to other other
points a few decades ago, and you're talking about I
mean even the point where my parents were buying their
first house and you were talking about double digit mid
double oh yeah, no during six percent industry.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Oh during the Jimmy Carter years. It was crazy. I
mean it was double digits. And you wonder, how does anybody,
how does anybody buy a home at twelve thirteen percent interest? Well,
it was creative financing, is what they did. It was
just all kinds of wild different machinations, all right.
Speaker 3 (05:43):
At some point though, I just worry.
Speaker 4 (05:44):
I just worry about all of the crafty, clever debt
products that people are that are afforded to us now.
And what it prevents is people from achieving any sort
of financial independence and any sort of margin in their lives.
And we were payment buyers to that, you know, to
the nth degree, and it just it disallows us from
(06:06):
really achieving any meaningful financial goals in our lives if
we live that way.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
Yeah. And when we had three percent money, borrowing money
made it was free money basically because you'll be making
five percent on your money and you'd be paying three percent.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
Sure, those days are gone, all right.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
So Joel the President decided that everybody in America is
going to get a tariff check, and and no one
knew that he was about to say that. And I'm
convinced that the President wakes up in the morning and decides, oh.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
Let's do this.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
Let's uh, we'll do a thirty percent tariff, and then
by noon it's now let's make it forty percent, and
then by dinner time, let's make it twenty two percent.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
I think that's exactly what happened here.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
And so he says, we want a two thousand dollars
per person tariff check.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
Let's talk about the's.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
Ability and how you would even do that, because who
is going to be able to get it?
Speaker 1 (07:08):
Kids, adults, households. When I don't get it.
Speaker 4 (07:13):
Some would call this flying by the seat of your
pants and throwing caution to the wind, and just like
making statements that you want to be true even if
they can't be or likely won't be. And in this
you know, this is while the Supreme Court is weighing
the legality of the tariffs to begin with the president's
(07:34):
ability to just say, yeah, forty percent tariffs on you Canada,
or eighty percent tariffs on you random island in the Pacific, right,
so he right now even just that ability for him
to create tariffs is legally dubious. And so then giving
rebate checks to Americans, which this is being I mean
the way that his people on his team are having
(07:57):
to talk about this because they weren't ready for it either.
Like the Treasury secretary was quoted he was basically saying, yeah,
I mean, it could be capped at like people who
have an income of one hundred thousand dollars. It could
just be these these tariff rebate checks that the President
talked about on true social could just be the tax
(08:18):
decreases that we're already seeing all the President's agenda.
Speaker 3 (08:21):
So this is his attempt to say.
Speaker 4 (08:23):
Maybe we've already kind of given those to you with
the big beautiful bill thing that passed. So maybe this
will be a check. Maybe it won't be like what
this is going to look. I just don't want people
to get their hopes up and spend the you know,
count their chickens before they hatch, assume they're getting a
two thousand dollars check when there's a decent chance they won't.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
Yeah, and on the tariff, And this is more political
than anything else. I think it's legitimate when we talk
about a balance of trade and we have to undo
that because a lot of countries has been very unfair
and I think the president is right about that, and
so they nail us, will nail them. And then there
are the other fun ones to Brazil tarriff because they're
(09:00):
going after Bolsonnaro, the former president that he likes, just
a friend of his. Okay, let's tear iff the hell
out of that country. Or Canada, let's tear if the
hell out of Canada.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
Why balance of trade.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Nope, they ran that ad that he wasn't comfortable with.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
I mean, it's pretty crazy.
Speaker 4 (09:20):
To trade policy via personal vendetta. Doesn't really make much
sense when you're talking about a country of three hundred
and fifty million people with a ton of economic importance worldwide.
And I get what you're getting at too, but I
also I have a trade and balance with the grocery
store that I go to. You know, I give them
money and they give me groceries, and guess what, we're
(09:42):
both happy with the way the deal is structured. And
so yeah, I think it's also okay to have trade
imbalances with certain countries as a matter of policy.
Speaker 3 (09:53):
I don't think that's necessary.
Speaker 4 (09:55):
It's not a bad thing, but I guess when we're
talking about promises of terror freebate checks like this is
just another one of those ideas that's floated around because
there's just so many of them and it's hard to
keep up because something new is hitting the headlines every
day or multiple times a day, and this is one
of those things that's just it's highly unlikely to happen.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
I think, yeah, we're in some tough financial times just
even understanding. One of the things you talked about is
the products, the credit products that are out there that
are exploding, and no one knows what the hell's going
on and what they mean and how far they go.
It was like the times when mortgages you would have
a single mortgage lender and then they combined them and
(10:38):
made the portfolio and slice them up, and no one
had any idea of who owned what. And it's just
a really complicated world and not getting any easier, is it.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
No, No, it's not. And I think that's that's why.
Speaker 4 (10:52):
Not to puff up my own importance, but I just
think that personal finance knowledge is even more necessary in
today's day and age because it's so confusing and people
are like, oh, buy now, pay later at checkout.
Speaker 3 (11:03):
This is why not like this obvious?
Speaker 4 (11:06):
I think we just assume that if it's offered to us,
that if somebody vetted it, and it must not be
terribly you know, we might be not probably not doing
something that's harming ourselves severely if we take advantage of that.
But we lose so much of our own optionality and
freedom the more we take advantage of some of these
more nefarious ways of taking on debt that are allowed
(11:29):
for us. And it's just all literally a new kind
of credit card offered by US bank that's attempting to
merge kind of the worlds of credit cards and buy
now and pay later and charging you a fee by
being able to delay essentially paying your credit card bill
by an extra month or two. And it's just getting
worse and worse, and the terms are getting less consumer friendly,
(11:51):
and we feel like the frogs sitting in the pot
of boiling water and it's getting hotter and hotter, and
we're just kind of oblivious to it in so many ways.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
Yeah, and by the way, just for the rest Joel,
when you said you're not blowing your own horn.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
Yes you are. That's precisely what you're doing.
Speaker 3 (12:07):
I'm so necessary right now, Bill, that's one's.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
Yeah, that's exactly my point. Congratulations, we can't live without you.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
That's all right. We'll do this again next week. I
have a good one, Joel, all right, you too, Bill,
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.