The World and Everything in It: April 15, 2024

PREROLL: The World and Everything in It is made possible by listeners like us. My name is Amber, and I live in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin where I homeschool my four children. I want to thank my friend Christy for introducing me to the podcast. I hope you enjoy today's program.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning! Today on Legal Docket, we go from water rights to bank operations, from Native American health-care to criminal procedure, and we did look for a common thread—in vain.

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: We might not like it, but unless we’re just making it up, I don’t know where else we’re going to look.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Yeah, we don’t, either.

Also, today the Monday Moneybeat. David Bahnsen will tell us what he means when he says “all economics is on the margin.”

Later the WORLD History Book. 60 years ago this week, a British rock band rolls into the spotlight.

REPORTER: How do you compare your group with the Beatles?  

MICK JAGGER: I don’t compare it at all.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, April 15th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Good morning!

REICHARD: Now here’s Kent Covington with today’s news.

SOUND: [Israel attack]

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Israel-Iran » Fireballs lit up the night sky over Israel as air defenses intercepted hundreds of incoming missiles and drones.

Israel is hailing defense systems in the face of Iran’s unprecedented direct attack on Saturday.

GANTZ: [Speaking Hebrew]

War Cabinet Minister Benny Gantz said those systems thwarted 99 percent of the incoming threats.

He also said—his words—“We will build a regional coalition and collect the price from Iran, in the way and at the time that suits us.”

BAGHERI: [Speaking Farsi]

Meantime, a top Iranian general, Mohammed Begheri said Iran planned no further direct attacks unless Israel moves against Iran.

Leaders in Tehran had promised retaliation for an airstrike that killed another top Iranian general in Syria.

Israeli Defense Forces spokesman Peter Lerner said the conflict with Iran is nothing new. It’s just spilling out into the daylight.

LERNER: Iran has been behind the scenes for many, many years, and even more so in the last 6 months during the war with Hamas — Iran is the financer, the trainer, and puppetmaster of all of these organizations, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.

U.S. response » At the white House, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told reporters:

KIRBY: Whether and how the Israelis respond, that’s going to be up to them. We understand that and we respect that. But the president’s been very clear, we don’t seek a war with Iran. We’re not looking for escalation here. 

But House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner said regardless of whether the White House is looking for escalation, it’s here.

TURNER: If this administration fails to step up to the plate and understand that we have an escalating conflict and that they make it clear to Iran that there are red lines, we will be in a broader conflict, and we will have less options.

He said the administration's public signaling that it wants to avoid further escalation at almost any cost actually emboldens Iran and makes it more dangerous.

The White House says the U.S. assisted Israel in shooting down the drones and missiles over Israel, but it has made clear it would not participate in any offensive action against Iran.

Ukraine aid latest » House Speaker Mike Johnson says he’ll renew efforts to advance a wartime aid bill that would include funds for Israel and other allies.

JOHNSON: The House Republicans and the Republican party understand the necessity of standing with Israel. We are going to try again this week. The details of that package are being put together right now. 

That package would also provide billions in aid for Ukraine. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul:

MCCAUL: I talked to the ambassador, our own ambassador to Ukraine as well. She said the situation is dire. You know, Karkiev could implode any day now. That’s 2 million people. And the power grid is under threat right now.

Another six civilians were just killed in Russian drone strikes and shelling across Ukraine.

Sydney attack aftermath » In Sydney, Australia a police officer and several bystanders are being hailed as heroes. One witness said he’s in awe of those who ran toward danger to take down an attacker who stabbed and killed six people at a shopping center Saturday.

WITNESS: I mean, the people confronting him, those people that were brave enough to take him on. Yeah, just amazing.

And Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told a local news outlet …

ALBANESE: That wonderful inspector who ran into danger by herself, and ordinary Australians putting themselves in harm’s way in order to help their fellow citizens. That bravery was quite extraordinary.

The 40-year-old attacker with a history of mental illness also wounded a dozen people before a police officer shot and killed him.

Trump calls for debate with Biden » On the campaign trail over the weekend, Donald Trump again challenged President Biden to debate him sooner rather than later.

TRUMP: While it’s a little bit typically early, we have to explain to the American people what is going on. Because they’re looking at the border, and they’re looking at inflation.

Trump heard there stumping in Pennsylvania, the only major swing state in which he does not have a lead over Biden in an average of recent polls. The latest numbers there suggest the race is tied.

And Trump has a half-point lead in Wisconsin. In all other big battleground states, he’s leading by about 3 points or more.

Democrats continue to hammer abortion » The governor of one of those battleground states is hammering Trump on abortion, which Democrats are pushing as a key election year issue. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer described Donald Trump this way to NBC’s Meet the Press …

WHITMER: The guy who appointed three lying Supreme Court justices to the bench who are the architects of the Roe repeal. 

For his part, the former president says the matter is now back with the states, and that’s where it belongs.

TRUMP: The states are working very brilliantly, in some cases conservative and some cases not conservative. But they’re working, and it’s working the way it’s supposed to.

He recently said he does not support abortion restrictions at the national level.

I’m Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: Oral arguments from the Supreme Court on Legal Docket. Plus, the Monday Moneybeat.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for this 15th day of April, 2024. We’re so glad you’ve joined us today. Good morning! I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. It’s time for Legal Docket.

Today, we’ll tackle four oral arguments. But before we get to those. we’ll tell you about three opinions the court handed down on Friday. each one unanimous!

First, a big win for private property owners facing huge permit fees before building on their own property.

This case involved a man named George Sheetz. He’d planned to build a little house on his rural property in California. But the county required first that he pay more than $23,000 for a “traffic impact fee,” even though the county didn’t base the figure on costs specifically attributable to his project.

He paid the fee, but did so under protest. And then he sued.

REICHARD: He said the government’s fee was so high, it was effectively taking his property from him—and that violates the 5th Amendment takings clause. That bill-of-rights protection bars government from taking private property for public use … without paying just compensation.

His lawyer Paul Beard had the winning argument back in January:

PAUL BEARD: Such review is needed to ensure that the government is not committing a taking in the guise of the police power to mitigate for land use impacts … upholding the lower court's decision would just invite the government to monetize across the country all of their permit exactions and to preset legislative fees in order to escape heightened review.

REICHARD: The main takeaway is the Constitution doesn’t limit the Takings Clause to a particular branch of government. Legislative or executive, federal or local, same thing.

The case is now remanded to lower court to figure out a fairer fee structure.

EICHER: On to the second opinion on arbitration.

It’s a win for local distributors of baked goods. These are businesses that sell and deliver fresh-baked goods to grocery stores, retailers, restaurants, and so forth. Distributors contract to do that and use arbitration agreements with bakeries to resolve disputes outside court.

Sure enough, a wage dispute arose and a distributor went to court.

The bakery pointed to the arbitration agreement.

But the distributor pointed to a provision of federal law. Under the Federal Arbitration Act, certain transportation workers have an exemption. The distributors said that covers their workers.

The high court agreed, again unanimously. The case is remanded to work out the wage dispute in court.

REICHARD: This last opinion today deals with securities-fraud claims.

Here, investors complained about a company that didn’t disclose that a future environmental law would hurt the company.

But the high court says silence alone is not enough. Failure to disclose certain information about future risk doesn’t by itself create a claim for securities fraud. Some affirmative statement is needed that would make the company’s silence misleading.

Case remanded for further proceedings.

EICHER: Well, alright, on to the oral arguments, four of them.

The first could be relevant to a lot of people, because it concerns mortgage loans and escrow accounts.

A man named Alex Cantero in Queens Village, New York, took out a mortgage loan from Bank of America to buy a house. The contract he signed spelled out a requirement that he put money in escrow to cover property taxes and insurance premiums.

State law requires the mortgage lender to pay at least two percent interest on escrow accounts, but Bank of America didn’t do that.

So Cantero sued for breach of contract.

REICHARD: But Bank of America says federal law doesn’t require it to pay interest. So that supercedes state law.

The bank also points to case law that says if the state law “significantly interferes” with the exercise of power by the national banks, the state law must fail.

Therefore the bank says it should win.

At the Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson homed in on that point to Cantero’s lawyer:

JUSTICE JACKSON: So I see the -- the standard, "significantly interferes," in the actual text of the statute, and I'm trying to understand whether this really is sort of an unusual or unworkable assignment for the courts.

Unworkable, and also how to quantify it. Justice Brett Kavanaugh:

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: I think you said it’s a judgment call and a matter of degree. Would a 10 percent state law, would that be significant interference?

The justices wrestled with the meaning of that phrase “significant interference.” But some worried that 50 different state laws would be unmanageable for national banks.

EICHER: Case two is a question of criminal procedure.

In 2013, a jury convicted Louis McIntosh on robbery and gun offenses, and imposed a sentence of nearly 60 years in prison.

It was at the sentencing hearing that the government for the first time demanded that McIntosh forfeit some things. Namely, $75,000 in cash and a luxury car used in the robberies.

REICHARD: The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure say orders to forfeit property have to come before sentencing.

But the problem is the government missed the deadline to seek those forfeitures. So the legal question is that time limit strict, or isn’t it?

During oral argument back in February McIntosh’s lawyer Steven Yurowitz argued the time limit should be seen as strict:

STEVEN YUROWITZ: It’s not too much to ask the government, if they’re seeking to deprive someone of property, to dot their ‘i’s,’ cross their ‘t’s,’ raise this issue before sentencing, and have the court address it.

But several justices seemed to think the time limit wasn’t mandatory, and that McIntosh had enough notice about the forfeiture demand that he could have objected to it.

Different appeals courts have ruled differently on this very question … so it’s up to the Supreme Court to resolve it for everyone.

EICHER: On to the third dispute, this one about how to pay for health care for Native Americans.

Tribes manage their own healthcare programs that are federally funded by the Indian Health Service, IHS.

But the funding level is insufficient to cover the administrative costs on top of healthcare.

REICHARD: Two tribes sued the federal government to pay the overhead. The question for the court is how to divvy up limited money.

The justices expressed frustration with the way Congress wrote the various funding laws. And they expressed concern that some money would end up going to non-Indians.

But Justice Neil Gorsuch pointed out the elephant in the room. Listen to this exchange with Adam Unikowsky, lawyer for the tribes.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: There’s not so much money here that the tribes are spending this on frolics and detours, right? I mean…

UNIKOWSKY: That’s correct, Your Honor. There’s not even close to enough money.

GORSUCH: And there’s not even enough money to provide healthcare to the Indians on the reservations, and you’re operating out of decrepit old buildings in many cases. And that’s what we’re really talking about. Nor are Indian Healthcare Services providing massive benefits to non-Indians all across America. We’re talking about a reservation in central Wyoming with an incredibly poor population of Native Americans.

Every term there are at least a few cases involving the government’s treaty obligations to Native Americans, and 248 years after our founding, we’ve still not resolved all of them.

EICHER: Case four now, another frequent flier at the high court: a dispute over the scarce water resources of the Rio Grande.

The river starts in southern Colorado at the base of the San Juan Mountains. It flows south to New Mexico, then into Texas where it defines the border between Mexico and the US. The Rio Grande flows all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.

REICHARD: A compact divvies up the water among Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado. It says Colorado must deliver a certain amount of water to New Mexico, which in turn must deliver it to a reservoir for distribution between New Mexico and Texas.

EICHER: But Texas complains that New Mexico allows surface water to divert from the river and it also pumps groundwater out that it shouldn’t.

New Mexico says so what? There’s no agreement to deliver a specific amount of water.

REICHARD: But the federal government says it’s not that simple. It has obligations to Native American tribes as well as to Mexico, with which the U-S has a treaty obligation to deliver water.

Back in 2018—in this same fight—the high court let the federal government intervene in the case.

Thereafter, the states came to an agreement, but the federal government says they can’t do that without federal approval. To allow it would be chaos.

EICHER: Justice Clarence Thomas seemed skeptical of that claim. He’s addressing assistant to the solicitor general Frederick Liu:

JUSTICE THOMAS: I don’t remember that argument you’re making now, a sort of apocalyptic argument being made in 2018.

LIU: …I don’t think what I presented here is apocalyptic...

REICHARD: Apocalypse or no, the legal question for the justices to resolve is this: May the three states come up with a new apportionment without federal approval?

Hard to say which way this’ll go.

EICHER: OK, last case today and this is about ACCA, the Armed Career Criminal Act, another frequent flier at the court.

Federal law says a person with a felony conviction may not possess a firearm or ammunition.

REICHARD: Upon a fourth conviction, ACCA comes into play by adding more prison time— for that offense alone of possessing a gun or ammo.

The catch is those prior offenses must be committed on “different occasions.”

EICHER: Two years ago, the Supreme Court resolved how to figure out the difference between a single occasion crime like a burglary spree and different occasions of crime, say on different nights.

But that opinion didn’t say who determines that at trial: the judge, or the jury?

REICHARD: Here, Paul Erlinger argues the four burglaries he was convicted of were not separate events. Therefore, ACCA ought not have been triggered later on when he was caught with a gun.

Erlinger says a jury should have decided that point, not the trial judge.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh grappled with established law and history:

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: The text itself of the Constitution does not tell us the answer, just the bare words, correct? So then we usually look to history. We might not like it, but unless we’re just making it up, I don’t know where else we’re going to look.

Each side claimed history is on its side, so the justices are left to determine who’s right.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket!

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: The Monday Moneybeat!

NICK EICHER, HOST: All right, time now to talk business markets and the economy with financial analyst and advisor, David Bahnsen. David is head of the wealth management firm, The Bahnsen Group. And he is here now. David, good morning.

DAVID BAHNSEN: Well, good morning, Nick, good to be with you.

EICHER: All right, David, we had a couple of economic data points that broke into the news last week, both of them measuring inflation, or trying to, but coming at it from different angles. Talking, of course, about the consumer price index, and the producer price index. And of course, we look at those data points in light of trying to predict when the Federal Reserve might back off of these high interest rates. Should we talk about these data points together? Or separately? Or how do you want to go?

BAHNSEN: Well, I think that there, it's kind of both. I mean, you want to look at the separate indicators from each and then what the aggregate lesson may be. And it's one of those weeks where, you know, the consumer price index came in 0.1% higher than expected, and the producer price index came in 0.1% lower than expected. And so when you take it together, the sort of a mixed bag, the lesson is actually the same from both, which is that in trying to measure something called an aggregate price level, you're gonna get outliers that skew the data. 

Right now, my concern for upside inflation is the one thing that I think really matters most to people and has nothing to do with the Fed, and that's oil. We were in the mid 70s, for a long time, and it's come now to the mid 80s. And as that sits there around the kind of higher 80s range, you have to wonder is it going to move into the 90s and even 100? At that point, the core inflation rate may not move at all, but the headline inflation rate will, and there wouldn't be anything the Fed could do about oil prices. That's why we created a separation of core and headline because they acknowledged that oil is particularly volatile, and particularly subject to geopolitical and, and commodity, you know, price movements that are outside of normal functions in the monetary and economic system. So it's a complicated bag, and it does provide people a lot of talking points to help fit their pre-existing narratives on things. But I'm trying to just be as objective and thorough as I can here.

EICHER: David, I'm assuming that the oil price issue is a supply side issue more than it is a demand side?

BAHNSEN: Well, yeah, I mean, it's obviously everything is always a little bit of both, but in this one more than the other. And in this case, OPEC+ has continued to not restore their normal production levels, even as prices have come back into the 80s, and announced further, they're going to stay at the lower production level, at least through June at this point. Now, why would OPEC+ do that? Why would they cut themselves off from a level of volume-driven profits even at higher price levels? And the answer is that they remain utterly furious at the United States for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve antics of 2022, whereby the United States flooded with additional oil from their emergency reserves, and then in 2023 did not refill it at the level that OPEC+ had expected. 

It's kind of a case where someone who exists to manipulate a price is mad at someone else who's manipulating the price. And so they're going to go and manipulate a price, and then the other party is going to respond themselves by manipulating the price, all the while both sides are calling themselves price manipulators. So neither the United States nor OPEC+ should be, or has any obligation to be, producing more oil than the market needs. But when both of them use the production of oil supply below demand levels as a means of competing with one another or manipulating the price, then you get all kinds of gamesmanship. And of course, you have to remember the United States also has the advantage of oil being denominated in their currency. So I'm an American and not an advocate for OPEC+, who are mostly very bad and evil actors. But there's a lot of truth to the accusations that both sides use oil and currency in a manipulative fashion.

EICHER: Sure. Well, David moving along here, President Biden issued another tranche of student loan debt cancellation last week. He's kind of been nickel and diming what he wanted to do originally, which was offered blanket relief. But the Supreme Court slapped him on the wrist a couple of years ago, said he had no authority to do that. So instead have something close to a trillion dollars with the tranche from last week, he's now up to $153 billion. I wonder at what point does this get noticed in the macro economic world?

BAHNSEN: Well, I think there's two questions in there, Nick. The answer to the second is on the macro economic level. Obviously, not. It is too small of a number. It's gone in piece by piece. A lot of it had been priced in and known about already, you know, certainly something like 7 billion, which was I think the number this week across a 5.9 trillion, doesn't have a particular economic impact, all of a sudden, would say a whole bunch of people that it's not that many, but a certain amount with a $200 monthly payment no longer have to make it. And they weren't making it anyways, that's the other thing is that he's forgiving the debt of a lot of people who already weren't paying it back. That was especially true early on, because they would come out of that whole COVID for, you know, pause where they weren't requiring payments. 

So, I do think it's an outrageous story, just utterly outrageous. And if there is a macro economic impact, it's when it gets to a point of a moral hazard by which, you know, if he had gotten away with that blanket debt for cancellation, he had planned that the Supreme Court said no, the moral hazard that would come about where people started expecting more of it. And also, eventually believing that credit card debt would start to be forgiven or other forms of consumer debt that have put a burden on people. And, you know, I think it's a mixed bag enough that there's too much confusion to allow a detectable macro trend. But all economics is marginal. And that's one of the things that we learned early on as a student of economics is that this stuff takes place on the margin. And on the margin, this outrageous activity has a marginal impact.

EICHER: Well, I think that's Defining Terms for us this week, David, the phrase that you just used, I know it's an important economic concept that all economics is on the margin. But can you break that down a little more simply, for us? What do you mean when you talk about that?

BAHNSEN: Yeah, the notion of marginal economics is really a fruit of the classical economic movement in the 18th and into the 19th centuries, where we understood that we don't just think about the sum total of something, but what happens at the next increment of it. And an example I would use with economic students I teach, you know, you get a lot of satisfaction as a consumer out of a cheeseburger. And you know, if you're really hungry, you're a big guy, you might really like a second one, too. But most people know that the 10th one is not really good, and has a diminishing return for you. And so there's a certain dollar amount we would pay for a cheeseburger, and we would not pay anything for a 10th cheeseburger. Or maybe we'd only just pay, you know, a very small amount. The value starts to go down on the margin. But you could say, “Well, what's the difference? A cheeseburger's a cheeseburger.” But see, it isn't, because the first one provides enhanced value relative to what the 10th one does. And that's an extreme and almost kind of humorous example, but I think it makes the point of the way all economics works, is, you know, when I look at monetary policy, your first rate cut has a certain stimulative impact. But the last rate cut is on the margin producing less behavioral response. And so whether it's monetary fiscal spending, we have to always think about what the next increment will do to an expenditure, to in addition, to a subtraction. That's what we mean by marginal economics. Not merely what is happening in sum total, but what is happening at the next increment.

EICHER: All right, David Bahnsen, founder, managing partner and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group. David's latest book is titled Full-Time: Work and the Meaning of Life, and you can find out more by visiting fulltimebook.com. David, I hope you have a great week.

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick. Good to be with you.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday April 15th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Coming up next, the WORLD History Book. Today, a legendary music group gets rolling. And, hockey’s “Great One” skates his last game.

But first, the death of a poet. Here’s WORLD Executive Producer Paul Butler.

PAUL BUTLER: It’s April, 1824 in the Ottoman Empire, and Greece is fighting for its independence. The town of Missolonghi is a strategic bastion for the Greeks in their fight against Turkish forces, so that’s where Lord Byron goes.

The English poet is an avid supporter of national independence and liberal causes, and he’s a fervent seeker of “sensation.”

Here’s how he puts it in a letter to Anne Milbanke.

AUDIO: The great object of life is sensation. To feel that we exist, even though in pain. It is this craving void which drives us to gaming, to battle, to travel, to intemperate but keenly felt pursuits of every description.

George Gordon Byron is flamboyant and scandalous. He runs up enormous debts and pursues romantic relationships with both women and men. At the age of 24, he publishes Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage, a narrative poem about a young man disillusioned with the reckless pleasures of the world. It sells out in three days. As Byron puts it, “I awoke one morning and found myself famous.” He becomes one of the world’s first celebrities. “Byromania” sweeps London. People buy his merch, write him fan mail, create fan fiction.

Over the next few years, Byron writes some of his most well-known poetry, including the lyrics, “She walks in beauty,” read here by actor Tom Hiddleston.

AUDIO: [“She walks in beauty”]

But his dazzling time in the spotlight is tainted by rumors of incest and other scandalous exploits. One of his mistresses famously calls Lord Byron “mad, bad, and dangerous to know.”

In 1816, he leaves England, never to return. Shortly after, he publishes the first two parts of Don Juan, a satirical poem based on the Spanish folk legend, Don Juan. Read here by Peter Gallagher.

AUDIO: What men call gallantry and gods adultery is much more common where the climate’s sultry.

Byron continues traveling through Italy and Switzerland, finally ending up in Greece. He plans to lead an attack on a Turkish fortress, but falls ill with a fever before setting out. He dies on April 19th, at age 36. In Greece, Lord Byron is still considered a national hero. And the term “Byronic” is still used to describe someone moody, dark, and cynical.

Next, the British Invasion.

AUDIO: [The Rolling Stones]

60 years ago on April 17th, the Rolling Stones release their debut studio album. While Lord Byron might be the first celebrity, the Stones might be the first rock stars.

AUDIO: [The Rolling Stones]

Mick Jagger and Keith Richards will go on to become one of the most successful songwriting duos in history, but for this debut album, they haven’t yet hit their stride. They contribute only one original song.

AUDIO: [You gotta tell me you’re coming back to me…]

A few of the tracks are group compositions, but most are covers from iconic rhythm and blues artists like Bo Diddley and Willie Dixon.

The album becomes one of 1964’s biggest sellers in the UK, staying at Number One for 12 weeks. When it releases in the United States in May, it’s under the title of “England’s Newest Hit Makers.” The Rolling Stones quickly follow other British artists like the Beatles to the top of U.S. charts as well.

REPORTER: Finally, Mick, how do you compare your group with the Beatles? 

MICK JAGGER: I don’t know, how do you compare? I don’t compare it at all. There’s no point.

At first, the Stones sport a similar look to the Beatles, clean cut, wearing matching suits. But they soon scrap that approach. They grow their hair long and shaggy, wear leather and army jackets, experiment with drugs and promiscuity. The group virtually invents the image of the modern rock star, writing over 340 songs and performing to this day.

Finally, 25 years ago, a hockey player hangs up his skates.

SOUND: [Applause]

April 18, 1999. Canadian Wayne Gretzky is considered one of the greatest hockey players of all time. This is his final NHL game.

AUDIO: At famous Madison Square Garden, Wayne Gretzky, the great one, will play his final one, showing little change in character from his first one.

Gretzky started skating when he was two years old and played hockey all growing up. He played 20 seasons with the National Hockey League, breaking and re-breaking multiple records. During his time in the NHL, Gretzky scores more goals than any other player in history. He’s the only one to score over 200 points in one season…and he does it four times.

AUDIO: Gretzky in front...saved by Flaherty...score!

Despite being smaller than many hockey players, Gretzky’s reflexes and smarts are unrivaled. He always seems to know exactly where the puck is going to be, when. And he’s able to dodge opponents who try to stop him. In interviews, he remains humble and gives credits to his teammates.

WAYNE GRETZKY: If I’m there, people try to knock me over. But I don’t think anybody goes out of their way, and besides that, I got a couple big teammates to look after things.

Immediately after retiring, Gretzky is inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame. And the NHL retires his jersey number, 99, across the league.

That’s this week’s WORLD History Book with reporting from Anna Johansen Brown who researched and wrote today’s segment. I’m Paul Butler.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: Federal student aid was supposed to be easier, but many high school seniors find themselves choosing a college without knowing if they can afford it. What went wrong? And, ice carving in the heart of Alaska. That and more tomorrow.

I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard.

The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio. WORLD’s mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

The Bible records Ananias saying to Saul “The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth; for you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard. And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” —Acts 22:14-16

Go now in grace and peace.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.