Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: In this episode, we discuss the video How Amsterdam Invented Capitalism and consider how what took place in Amsterdam actually reveals some of the inherent contradictions in what people think of as capitalism.
Hello, welcome to the Call Like I See it podcast. I'm James Keith, and joining me today is a man whose money trees can provide enough shade for all. Tunde. Ogunlana Tunde, are you ready to hit us with some poetic justice today?
[00:00:42] Speaker B: Nah, man, you can't give away all my secrets.
People stalking me now for money. Come on, man, you can't.
[00:00:50] Speaker A: My bad, man, My bad.
[00:00:51] Speaker B: I don't have any money, guys. I'm poor.
[00:00:53] Speaker A: They got to know you're a serious guy, man. That's all.
[00:00:55] Speaker B: No, no, no, man. I'm the poorest guy you ever met. That's it. Jesus, you're gonna mess me up here.
Now, before we get started, I can't have my kids listening to this. I just told them we can't buy lunch today. What are you talking about?
[00:01:09] Speaker A: Before we get started, if you enjoy the show, I ask that you subscribe, like the show on YouTube or your podcast app. Doing so really helps the show out. We're recording on July 7, 2026. And Tunde, you recently resent a video to me on YouTube. It's called how Amsterdam Invented Capitalism. And I know you had watched it a while back. It came out in 2025, or it was posted in 2025 on this on the page, show me the World. And you had recently resented. And so we watched it. Want to talk about it for the show? Now, the video goes through the circumstances that led Amsterdam to becoming a huge financial center. And you go back a few 400 years or so, including the creation of the Dutch East India Company in Amsterdam and the creation of the first stock exchange shortly thereafter. And also how the seeds were set. The video also touched on how the seeds were set for London and New York to eventually become financial centers in their own right.
Now, looking at the video, we're looking at all this. What stood out in this video as far as what it presents, as far as Amsterdam having invented capitalism?
[00:02:13] Speaker B: Several things stuck out. A pretty fascinating video, actually. I would say a couple things. The two things primary to me were timing, that the Dutch were kind of in the crosshairs of a lot going on in the world, not just Europe at the time. And so it's kind of this timing of advances in technology, what was going on kind of geopolitically, with which countries and empires were siding with who, all that. And the Dutch seemed to have a Nice. Kind of like the three bears. Their porridge was just right. So I think that to me was interesting. And then the other thing was going back to something that we got from the book Sapiens.
I really kept thinking this is a true imagined order, this capitalism thing. This idea of a company that issues shares and that there's value and that you can be a shareholder and hold onto those shares and that the performance of how that company operates can increase your wealth over time. I mean, all those were new concepts because that allowed people who weren't in the nobility, weren't wealthy through a bloodline to actually begin to participate in wealth. And I think that is a very.
[00:03:30] Speaker A: In general, because remember, at least in Europe at that time, you're coming out of a feudal system where, yeah, it's like land is tied to wealth, and if you don't have land, then you're not wealthy. But this was the rise of the merchant class of wealth.
[00:03:44] Speaker B: So that's what I'm saying. Like, to me that the timing of what was going on, along with that, the fact that they created this new imagined order. And it really, you think about the last 400 years, the world is profoundly different than it was for the. Maybe the prior 4,000 years. I mean, it seems like this technological advancement and all that, a lot of it has been stoked by the. If I can say it this way, James, the passions, right. Maybe the incentives that capitalism and this idea of all the exploration, all that that was able to because of this new imagined order. So, yeah, to me, that was.
[00:04:21] Speaker A: No, I think. And so that's good because our overlap, we have less overlap here because I'd say that the things that stood out to me, one was how care was taken. To talk about how in Amsterdam at that time you had refugees and people from a lot of different places and how they didn't bog themselves down with the religious disputes that had consumed Europe at the time or things like that. Like, people were able to do them. And so as a result, because you're not fighting over this and fighting over that or. And then also you bringing in refugees, you know, different ideas, you know, immigrants. Oh, you know, you did all this stuff and you. New things are being created. You know, like there's a dynamic, you know, it's more dynamic in society because of those things. So that piece was. Was interesting to me just that it's not. This isn't just the, hey, everybody who's been here, or everybody who's here has been here for a thousand years and so forth. And. But there's people coming and going and new ideas and so forth. But the other thing though was I spent a lot of the time trying to connect because, you know, the title of the video and titles of videos, you know, it's YouTube, you know, the title of the video is not, that doesn't necessarily have to track exactly to what you're going to learn or anything like that.
But the video is, you know, how Amsterdam invented capitalism. So I spent much of the video trying to figure out, okay, well what did Amsterdam invent that we then consider capitalism? You know, so what from what I gathered, you know, okay, yes, the, the Dutch East India Company and the issuance, issuance of tradable stock, you know, stock that could then be traded and issuance of that to anybody, any, anybody there in Amsterdam wanted to buy some, they could buy some and then it could be traded. The, the reason it could be traded I found to be interesting in that investing in one of these ships that was going to go to Asia for spices typically was, it was a one shot deal. Like you invest in a ship and then that ship comes back and you get your money, you know, you get your investment. If the ship comes back, you get your money back plus whatever profits made and then done deal. And in this instance, what, what the Dutch East India Company did was say, hey, no, we, you gotta put your money and you're gonna put it in for 10 years period. And so from that then it's like, well, somebody wanted to get out. You need to have a secondary market for that. And so that's how you end up having these tradable stocks and that. You, you create a stock exchange in that sense. So I was looking at that.
But what wasn't invented, so to speak. And a lot of times when people talk about capitalism, a lot of other things are a part of it, you know, like, oh, it's about the free market. Anytime you hear capitalism, people, oh yeah, free markets and this and that. And so I, I was very curious and very interested to hear what exactly. And, and that's what I, you know, I got out of it. And you're talking, you know, a corporation that issues tradable stock and stock markets and so forth, which is parts of capitalism, but there's other things that people think are inherent to capitalism. But maybe we should question whether those things are inherent to capitalism or that that's the only way that capitalism can be done.
[00:07:13] Speaker B: Yeah, man, I think it's very interesting. You bring up the immigrant part that stuck out to me too, that Amsterdam, it Seems like the areas that have historically, and maybe in this system of capitalism. Right. Done very well.
If you look at their geographies, is places that have high concentrations of people coming into them from other places. People that are motivated to get out of wherever they were to go into this new area. And I think that was interesting to learn about Amsterdam. Just so much activity. And there was a historian. I'm going to definitely say that I didn't invent this quote, but I found it. Great historian I saw being interviewed once, he said, history is always being made while something else is happening.
And I thought when I was watching this documentary, I thought about that, because think about what the Dutch were really doing. It was all about competition, because they were trying to. They didn't like that the Ottomans had a lock on the trade of spices and other goods from India and China, kind of from the East. Right.
And once the technology changed in the crankshaft was created where they could build ships 30 times faster and for cheaper than their neighboring empires or countries in Europe.
Then all of a sudden they said that within a few years, these ships started coming back full with all these goods.
And that's what gave rise to the ability of people wanting to say, hey, let's raise more money. If we can raise more money, we can go out and get more goods that we can sell back into Europe. So it was the beginning of this enterprise, let's say enterprise mindset of looking at this idea of let's go somewhere else and get these raw materials, these commodities, we can bring them back here, refine them into something else, and then sell them in our backyard and make a spread, make a profit. And I think that, to me, was also interesting that there's all this stuff going on all the time in the world. And that's where the. To me, the timing, the technology always at. The Dutch just had this.
By the invention of the crankshaft, certain thing, the ability to get more ships out quicker than the Portuguese or the Spanish, they're now able to dominate shipping routes and all that. And that changes the trajectory. But then raising money for this company also changes the way that things happen.
[00:09:33] Speaker A: Yeah, actually, there's another piece with that and that goes into this merchant class because one of the reasons they talked about there was no king in Amsterdam, you know, there was a. More of a republic.
[00:09:45] Speaker B: Republic, yeah, it was a republic.
[00:09:47] Speaker A: And as a result, though, the people who like the. The Spanish and the Portuguese at that time, particularly I think the Portuguese, but then also the Spanish, were well established in this route, the sea route.
To. To Asia. You know, land route goes through, you know, where you can imagine, goes through Europe and then Asia, through the Ottoman Empire or, you know, whatever's going. Whoever's ruling in Turkey at that moment.
And. And the sea route goes around Africa and then up through to India and then Eastern Asia. And with that, you had the Portuguese and the Spain. These things were being done on behalf of the Crown, generally speaking, whereas in Amsterdam, they're being done by merchants. And that's where you talk about this unending drive when you're working for the Crown. It's like, okay, yeah, I can do a little better myself. I'll stay somewhat motivated and. Or, you know, like, they might lock me up if I don't stay motivated or whatever. But this merchant class, their potential benefit was limitless. Like, there was no. Like, the more they, you know, and the crankshaft was an important invention. They talk about in there. And just in terms of being able to build ships faster. So once that happens, there's no limit to how much money they can make.
You know, it's not being taken off by the Crown or it's not the Crown saying, oh, I got enough. I got enough Ivy back scratchers now. You know, we'll only send one chip this year. You know, it's like, they keep building ships, they keep going, they keep investing, they can keep getting more and more money. You know, like, their demand was. Was insatiable. So if they could keep bringing in the supply. So that also was a distinct thing of the merchant class, so to speak, being the ones running the show. The guys who were enterprising already and not the people that were born into some position that were just, you know, like, hey, you know, we're just. We were born here, our dad was here, and so, yeah, we're good to go, you know, so, yeah, like, I thought that was a distinguishing point, I think.
[00:11:36] Speaker B: Dude, I'll just follow up on that before we keep going. I think that's an excellent observation, because I did recognize it, and I'm glad you brought it up, because as you're saying, it makes me realize, too think about it. Had there been a king in the Dutch Republic or whatever, the merchants may not have had an opportunity to get this far with this, because think about it. Anybody else with any wealth by a certain level is a threat to the monarch.
That's probably, you know, and to your point about. I didn't think about it, but the crankshaft probably wouldn't have happened either if it was a monarchy, because there wouldn't have Been that drive by just the merchant class to keep, keep trying to get better at something, you know, because like you said, the king might just
[00:12:14] Speaker A: be like going this year, limitless benefits. It's just limitless. Like, hey, we can just keep making more and more and more, you know.
[00:12:20] Speaker B: So I found that very well.
[00:12:22] Speaker A: The people that are in power are there because of merit and not because of nepotism, you know, and so that, that makes a difference in terms of the kind of people and the kind of mentalities you're talking about. And then also to your point, not being threatened by there. You don't have a king being threatened by the growth in wealth and so forth.
[00:12:39] Speaker B: Now you can stop because I'm getting depressed is that you're talking. I'm realizing, oh, we're losing our republic here. We're going into going into nepotism.
Some monarchy nepotism system. That's not good. That doesn't seem to be the right direction.
But one of my questions I have for you is, did you like. Because in watching the documentary, I thought it was very interesting. Obviously we're having a good conversation about it. But I wanted to know because you're good at pointing out sometimes these contradictions or inconsistencies. Did you feel that there were any besides, like you said, maybe just the definition of what is capitalism. But I know that, that I'll read
[00:13:15] Speaker A: a definition of capitalism just from Webster's economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decisions, and by prices, production and distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
Well, again, like that's three different things that they're saying are defining characteristics of capitalism. But you know, the east, the Dutch East India Company was founded as a way to form a monopoly. So then that leads me to question, so are markets inherently part of capitalism, or can you have a capitalist type of system with the private ownership and so forth, and that doesn't involve markets? And I think, you know, that makes me look around today. You know, it's like, okay, yeah, like we see actually in a capitalist system, essentially a capitalist system can't sustain itself absent a regulatory environment that prevents too much monopoly. Because what ends up happening when we see these capitalist systems, the drive for profit leads a drive for consolidation.
It doesn't lead to a drive for healthy competition. Healthy competition seems to be something that has also been determined to be helpful in a capitalism system, not something that's inherent in the capitalism system. So a lot of times it would be Helpful for us to realize when we talk about these types of things that oh yeah, we gotta have capitalism, we gotta have markets. And it's like, well, no, no, no. Capitalism and markets don't coexist inherently. You can have the capitalism piece by saying, okay, yeah, private ownership, you know, government, keep your hands out of the ownership piece of people that are doing capital goods. And that's capital goods. Again, that's not talking about police stations and roads. But you'll keep government, stay out of that. But then government, we need you to prevent monopolies. We need you to create a market, to create a stock market. I mean, you can go on and on about talking about how when you have an unregulated stock market, what ends up happening when there's no inter. When there's no sec, there's no this and that, it becomes predatory, it becomes something that is not something that's growing up.
[00:15:20] Speaker B: What if you only had one company on the exchange like you're saying? Like let's say it was a true monopoly, you wouldn't have. There would be no market to your point. That's why I think it's a great point. If you had one company on the Dow Jones and that's it, there's no real market because who you trade no shares with who you know. So I think it's a good point and.
Sorry, did you finish?
[00:15:41] Speaker A: But no. So all I'm saying is that a lot of times there's an assumption that all these things naturally come with capitalism. That's why again, when I came into the documentary, what did they actually invent? And then what about these other things that we think about are actually things that have been added to it to make it work better? Because I worry that we live in a time right now where a lot of the things that have been added to it to make it work better for the benefit of everyone and the enterprising in particular are being stripped away.
[00:16:06] Speaker B: Yeah. So you bring up some interesting things. I think we can look now back at the 400 year trajectory of this capitalism. And I think that you're very. It's a very good point that they purposely created a monopoly at the beginning of this with the Dutch East India Company to compete against the other empires, the British. Sorry, the. Well, I guess the British, yeah, and the Spanish and the Portuguese at the time being the most dominant.
And so. But it's interesting because I recently got through down a rabbit hole about the history of the British East India Company because I saw a quote from Adam Smith who was the author of the wealth of nations, which is one of the first big tomes of how Iran these big considered foundation systems. Yeah, yeah. And. And I was pleasantly surprised to learn that Adam Smith really disliked the British East India Company. And what he said about it was basically what you just said. He was criticizing it in the 1700s because he felt that it was such a monopoly on the British economy and the British system that the British people actually were the ones suffering and all the. And a few people at the top of the British society were really benefiting and he felt it was corrupt and all that. And it's interesting. Yeah. Like, like, like, like the Gilded Age before, you know, I guess what, like
[00:17:19] Speaker A: what we have in our society right now.
[00:17:21] Speaker B: But, but think about this, James. And this is what I learned then. Guess what? The British crown and the government itself with the British taxpayers and the, the taxes from all the colonies had to bail out the British East India Company for overextending itself in India in 1773.
[00:17:40] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:17:40] Speaker B: How did they then deal with the British crown with trying to, you know, repatriate themselves for bailing out this company that, you know, they started taxing the colonies more. Wow. Three years later. And three years later in 1776, because you know what the true story was? They started taxing the tea. So the American colonists started buying tea from the Dutch and that off the Crown and started this whole thing. And so what I'm saying is that's why I love that quote that, that historian said is history is made while something else is happening. Because even going back to the American Revolution. Right. It all stems from this Dutch East India Company and then the British seats, you know, this whole way of that capitalism was figuring itself out. And I think you're right. I think the New Deal and maybe starting with Teddy Roosevelt with the square deal and the book trust busting and the antitrust.
[00:18:30] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:18:30] Speaker B: So the American system, let's say by the early 20th century, may have been the first to do what you said, really say, oh, hold on. We got to make sure the government actually seems to be the only entity that could be powerful enough to stop these oligarch monopolists.
Because like I said, maybe in the other discussion we had in a recent show that kind of. Since the French Revolution, we've been seeing these kind of booms and busts in societies based on when you get this equilibrium out of balance with the. When it gets too out of balance between the top and the bottom of society. And I think that, yeah, the New Deal was one of the, and maybe post World War II European, like the Scandinavian, the Canadian, that kind of like system where it's capitalist, but they do have that sprinkle of let's just have a safety net, let's have the public health care options and all that. And I think, you know, that that might be the way that societies have tried to counter that monopolistic reality. I wouldn't even say.
[00:19:29] Speaker A: But it's a reality monopoly. It's monopolistic. Well, and then, you know, Ricardo talks about this. It's. You drive the wages below sustenance, you know, or wages go to, like, if you just allow the capitalist impulse to go. The capitalist impulse, it's like an engine. It can be a lot, it can be written, but it will explode if you don't put the right frame on it, you know, and so that to me. And so again, back to the question of what did the Dutch actually invent? Well, they invented kind of, or they took us, started taking us down this road of this incredible engine that could take you to the moon. But if you don't put the right framework on it, then you end up destroying your habitat, you know, the Earth, you know, a few hundred years or a few 50 or, you know, like, whatever, you'll. You'll make it so that you can't even live here anymore. Because there's no check on that engine. Naturally not. Markets aren't a natural check. You. Because the capitalists will get rid of the markets and become a trust, become a monopoly. And so you have to have something to keep the markets in place that keeps. And then you have to have something that makes sure that wages and workers can get a fair shake. If you don't have that, again, the capitalist. That won't. They won't happen. The capitalist impulse is to not give the workers a fair shake, you know, because it's the same things that make the engine powerful are the same things that make it slow. Won't do those other things.
[00:20:49] Speaker B: Yeah, no, I agree.
[00:20:50] Speaker A: All right, so my last question on this, though, is because we talk about this kind of stuff from time to time, and I'd say from the rise of quote unquote, rents over profits, which was discussed in Giannis Varoufakis, techno feudalism, which we discussed a couple years ago, to what we've seen recently with the US Government, actually since in the last year, US Government's been taking positions, ownership positions with various companies like Intel.
Do you think the form of capitalism or proto capitalism that was invented in Amsterdam supposedly apparently still exists? Like, are we doing, Are we still doing the same thing? Or again, do we just think we're doing the same thing or do we think that whatever we're doing is capitalism? Because that's kind of just the way our mindsets are. But actually what we're doing is something that is different than that in a way that may be better or worse.
[00:21:45] Speaker B: Good question, man. I think we're still doing the capitalism thing, but I think for the conversation we've been having, it's continuing to evolve.
And I think it's a good point you make about the US government taking positions in publicly traded and privately held companies. The latest I heard is the people that run OpenAI, for example, now are according the US government about taking a stake in that company. And you're right about Intel. I learned recently that the U.S. government took a position in U.S. steel. And that's, that's to me like, all right, I thought that socialism, the definition of it is when the government owns the means of production. And I'm thinking like, okay, Intel's producing chips, you know, US Steel produces steel. Like there's others too.
[00:22:31] Speaker A: There's others too.
[00:22:32] Speaker B: Yeah. Seems like means of production to me. Right, so that's the first part of
[00:22:36] Speaker A: the definition is private ownership. Now we're starting to have US government doing it.
[00:22:41] Speaker B: That's, that's what I'm saying. So, and, and also James, things that again, and this is not to get off topic, right. But what do the American people want? Because they always say they don't like China, but it looks like this is kind of direction we're going is kind of state, quasi state owned companies and on the political side maybe having one party, just single party rule and so, and so that seems to be monopoly in business, monopoly in politics, like where things are going. I don't know if that is capitalism's fault or if that is a function of just technology and how we as human beings are organized and all this stuff and a combination of all that. But I do think, James, that yeah we're, I think maybe part of it is technology that at some point the idea of ownership, the idea of all that was different than maybe today with technology of streaming and subscription services. The idea of rents really can, can like I sent you an article recently. I don't know how much you had it, maybe a chance to see it, but it was about PlayStation that by January of 2028 they're no longer going to have disks.
It's all going to be. And I just thought the same thing. I was like, hold on so, so if my Internet goes out, I can't play a game.
[00:23:56] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:23:56] Speaker B: Because right now I got discs for my PS5. So at least when the Internet goes out as a rainstorm or something, as long as I have electricity, I can put the disk in and play it.
I feel like I own that disc.
But now I'm going to be playing paying rent to PlayStation. I'm just going to pay for the ability to get on their platform when it works and that's it. And if they want to change anything of that, it's going to affect me
[00:24:18] Speaker A: if they want to change the game after you've bought it.
[00:24:24] Speaker B: So that's all I'm saying is I don't know if that is pure capitalism or not capitalism. I just think that this is going to continue to evolve and that's, I
[00:24:31] Speaker A: think that's the key piece is that capitalism is not static. You know, whatever was invented then, like what we're doing now would be unrecognizable to Adam Smith.
[00:24:39] Speaker B: Correct?
[00:24:40] Speaker A: Yeah. You know, and based on what he talked about, it would not be something he would be thinking is a good thing, you know, in that sense, like, and so I do think that it's a continued evolution. And this is what I think people who aren't just the greedy, I think the greedy people know this already.
It's going to change. And so what you want to do is change it in ways that benefit you or that benefit, if you have anything higher than yourself that you care about a general society or a system, it's going to change. So the New Deal changed it. The New Deal changed capitalism in ways that I think benefited a society.
It's been changed since then. The idea of importing trickle down in economics and so forth has fundamentally changed the way that it works. And so if you understand that it's going to change what I think a lot of times like again, greedy people understand it's going to change. So they're constantly working on trying to make it so that it bends and changes in ways that benefit them personally. What steward type people may want to consider also is that hey, if it's going to change, maybe we should be constantly trying to modify it and adjust it in ways that, because, or modified in ways that produce better outcomes for society and for a system that works, that hard work is rewarded and, and you know, like there is some level of a safety net or whatever. Because the thing is is that while I point to the New Deal as a system that actually worked for a large society that delivered the largest middle class in the history of the world and did not have out of control wealth equality and so forth.
I don't think you could just do that again. You have to take the lessons from that and then implement a new system that leverages what that did well, but also updates it for what's happening now.
So if you understand that the thing is going to change and you're proactive about, okay, well what do we need to do to change it, then you can stay on top of this because it's going to change, it's going to change. And if you don't then, and I think it's basically, it's a little lazy to just say, hey, let's just blow up capitalism and let's do socialism. Because you know what, socialism has problems too, you know. And then right now even in the United States we have more of a quasi system anyway. We have things that have social socialism type aspects to them and we have things that have capitalist type aspects, you know, so it's lazy to just say, oh, we're just going to do this, oh we're just going to do that. You actually have to take a little bit of thought and effort and, or put people, put public servants in office who actually would care about the greater good as opposed to just themselves and have them work on ways to continue to tweak and adjust the system to get better outcomes out of it. Because one, capitalism won't take you there on its own and two, it's going to continue to evolve and you got to be on the forefront of that evolution if you want to ride that engine and not have it blow up on you.
[00:27:29] Speaker B: Yep, that was very eloquent and beautiful. But I'm going to have to disappoint you here and just let you know most of us out here are lazy.
And so we are going to continue to look for simple answers, whether it be capitalism, Capitalism or socialism. Yes, that scratches our back emotionally and that confirms our pre existing biases. That's what's going to. That's one thing I can guarantee is going to continue. I will bet my life on that. How this whole economic thing and capitalism and republics and monarchies and all that plays out that that's for someone else.
[00:28:00] Speaker A: No, for sure.
[00:28:01] Speaker B: And to your point, I just finished.
[00:28:02] Speaker A: You're right about that.
[00:28:04] Speaker B: Yeah, I'll just finish it.
[00:28:05] Speaker A: That's one thing I can guarantee.
[00:28:07] Speaker B: Yeah, it's, it's in a show a
[00:28:11] Speaker A: long time ago and I've never let you forget it. Sometimes people are human beings too.
I Love it.
[00:28:18] Speaker B: They are.
[00:28:19] Speaker A: That was. That was one of my favorite quotes sometimes.
[00:28:21] Speaker B: See, you used to make fun of me with that. But I feel like now, after all these years and all this psychological learning we've done about people, you really embrace it.
[00:28:29] Speaker A: I loved it all along. I loved it all along. It was genuine. It was a genuine quote. It's like. You know what? I loved it so that I wasn't making fun of you. I just had fun with it.
[00:28:38] Speaker B: I'm gonna.
[00:28:39] Speaker A: I mean. I mean.
[00:28:39] Speaker B: I mean, I'm gonna start changing the word primates just to prove the. You know, make the point more pronounced. But, yeah, so. But anyway, man, we can rap, because I know that I got stuff. I had something else to say and now I forgot it about the largest.
[00:28:51] Speaker A: It's all good.
[00:28:52] Speaker B: I hit you with the.
[00:28:53] Speaker A: Sometimes people are human beings, too, man.
[00:28:55] Speaker B: Yeah. No, he just got me thinking about being lazy. So now I'm gonna go smoke a joint and just, you know, finish my day that way, so.
[00:29:03] Speaker A: All right, man. There you go.
[00:29:04] Speaker B: Let's go. All right, man.
[00:29:06] Speaker A: Well, now we appreciate all for joining us on this episode called Like I See It. Subscribe to the podcast, rate it, review it, tell us what you think. Send it to a friend. Till next time, I'm James Keys.
[00:29:14] Speaker B: I'm Tunde Golana. All right, we'll talk soon.
