"I get in trouble when I say things like this" - Michael Lewis on Sam Bankman-Fried from Cautionary Tales

Summary

Podcast Summary: "I Get in Trouble When I Say Things Like This" - Michael Lewis on Sam Bankman-Fried from Cautionary Tales

Against the Rules with Michael Lewis features a compelling episode titled "I Get in Trouble When I Say Things Like This," where Michael Lewis delves into the rise and fall of Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), exploring themes of effective altruism, ethical decision-making, and the complexities of human behavior within high-stakes environments.

---

Introduction to the Episode

Timestamp: 02:08

Tim Harford opens the episode by recalling his previous interactions with Sam Bankman-Fried, setting the stage for a deep dive into SBF's transformation from a cryptocurrency wunderkind to the central figure in what is often termed the "fraud of the century." The conversation aims to uncover the psychological and philosophical influences that shaped SBF's actions, particularly focusing on the effective altruism movement.

---

The Allure of Effective Altruism

Timestamp: 06:04 - 07:38

The discussion begins with SBF recounting how he stumbled into effective altruism without prior knowledge of its existence. Michael Lewis highlights SBF's background—his parents were non-materialistic law professors at Stanford, and he had little interest in wealth accumulation. Instead, SBF was drawn to effective altruism, a movement advocating for the use of evidence and reason to determine the most effective ways to benefit others.

Notable Quote:

Sam Bankman-Fried (07:38): "They tend to be kind of on the spectrum. They tend to be male. They tend to be math or physics. They tend to be socially awkward. They were people who... could talk themselves into using logic and numbers as a guide to action in the way that emotion is a guide to action for us."

This segment explores how effective altruism appealed to individuals with analytical minds, emphasizing quantitative solutions to global problems.

---

Prioritizing Existential Risks Over Immediate Needs

Timestamp: 09:31 - 15:45

Harford and SBF delve into the effective altruism community's prioritization of long-term existential risks, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and pandemics, over more immediate and tangible issues like poverty and health. SBF explains how the movement's focus shifted towards preventing scenarios that could end human civilization, even if the probabilities were minuscule.

Notable Quotes:

Tim Harford (09:31): "Dead is dead."

Sam Bankman-Fried (15:20): "You're puffing yourself up. You're a superhero now. You're now going to save humanity."

This discussion critically examines the ethical implications of diverting substantial resources towards hypothetical future threats at the expense of addressing present-day suffering.

---

Impact of Effective Altruism on SBF's Decision-Making

Timestamp: 16:09 - 21:32

SBF articulates how effective altruism influenced his worldview, leading him to adopt a data-driven approach to philanthropy and risk mitigation. However, he acknowledges the challenges inherent in this approach, such as the difficulty in quantifying long-term impacts and the detachment from immediate emotional responses.

Notable Quote:

Sam Bankman-Fried (20:31): "Yes, I mean, qualify it. But he behaved very well to the little people around him who helped him."

This segment humanizes SBF, portraying him as a kind individual who was manipulated by larger systemic influences and internal philosophies.

---

Listener Questions: Altruism and Ethical Choices

Timestamp: 22:22 - 32:08

The episode transitions to listener-submitted questions, which SBF addresses thoughtfully. Topics include the moral dilemmas of effective altruism, such as prioritizing long-term gains over immediate aid and the ethical considerations of publicizing charitable contributions.

Notable Questions & Responses:

1. AI vs. Climate Change as Priority Causes

   • Questioner: Why are effective altruists more concerned about AI risks than climate change?
   • SBF (23:26): "They throw much more money into pandemic prevention than AI. Even though he thought AI was the greater risk, he couldn't figure out what to do about it."

2. Altruism’s Role in Society

   • Questioner: Why do we need altruism when better societal organization could mitigate the need for it?
   • SBF (28:05): "Without human sympathy... why would you bother to organize society in a kinder way like that is what's at the bottom of attempts to organize society so that you don't need it."

These exchanges highlight the internal conflicts within effective altruism regarding the allocation of resources and the balance between data-driven decision-making and empathetic intervention.

---

Michael Lewis Discusses His New Book: "Who Is Government?"

Timestamp: 32:21 - 47:29

Michael Lewis shifts the conversation towards his latest work, "Who Is Government?," co-authored with six writers, exploring the intricate workings of various U.S. government departments. The book aims to humanize government employees and showcase the profound impact of their work, often overshadowed by political narratives.

Key Insights:

• Profiles of Dedicated Public Servants:

  • Lewis narrates stories of government employees excelling in obscure and critical fields, debunking stereotypes about bureaucrats.

• The Fifth Risk & Systemic Inefficiencies:

  • Drawing parallels with his previous work, "The Fifth Risk," Lewis underscores the chaos and lack of organization within certain government sectors, emphasizing the need for competent administration.

Notable Quote:

Michael Lewis (36:02): "It's hard to believe that such people still exist in American life. Everybody else seems to be looking for fame and fortune. These are sort of like the opposite of reality TV stars."

This section underscores the disconnect between the public's perception of government bureaucracy and the reality of its devoted workforce striving to solve complex, often unheralded problems.

---

Conclusion and Final Thoughts

Timestamp: 47:18 - End

In wrapping up, Lewis reflects on the themes of altruism and government efficacy, suggesting that meaningful impact often requires transcending personal motives and working towards the greater good. The conversation concludes with Lewis advocating for appreciation and support of public servants who dedicate their lives to maintaining societal structures.

Notable Quote:

Michael Lewis (46:31): "One of the keys to a meaningful life is to find ways outside of yourself, find ways to live for things other than yourself."

---

Key Takeaways

1. Effective Altruism's Double-Edged Sword:

   • While promoting data-driven philanthropy, effective altruism can lead to neglecting immediate human needs in favor of long-term existential threats.

2. Humanizing Government and Philanthropy:

   • Both the government bureaucracies and philanthropy movements require a nuanced understanding of individual motivations and systemic influences.

3. Ethical Dilemmas in Philanthropy:

   • Balancing the need for transparent, impactful giving with ethical considerations around influence and public perception remains a complex challenge.

4. The Complexity of Human Behavior:

   • Individuals like Sam Bankman-Fried exemplify how personal philosophies and systemic pressures can culminate in unintended, often detrimental outcomes.

---

Notable Quotes with Attribution and Timestamps

• Sam Bankman-Fried (07:38): "They tend to be kind of on the spectrum. They tend to be male. They tend to be math or physics. They tend to be socially awkward..."

• Tim Harford (09:31): "Dead is dead."

• Sam Bankman-Fried (15:20): "You're puffing yourself up. You're a superhero now. You're now going to save humanity."

• Michael Lewis (36:02): "It's hard to believe that such people still exist in American life. Everybody else seems to be looking for fame and fortune..."

• Michael Lewis (46:31): "One of the keys to a meaningful life is to find ways outside of yourself..."

---

This episode serves as a profound exploration of the intersections between personal motivations, ethical philosophies, and systemic structures, offering listeners a nuanced perspective on the complexities of altruism and governance in contemporary society.

Transcript

[Tim Harford]

This is an iHeart podcast.

[Michael Lewis]

In business they say you can have better, cheaper or faster, but you only get to pick two. What if you could have all three at the same time? That's exactly what Cohere, Thomson Reuters and Specialized Bikes have since they upgraded to the next generation of the cloud. Oracle Cloud Infrastructure OCI is the blazing fast platform for your infrastructure, database, application development and AI needs where you can run any workload in a high availability, consistently high performance environment and spend less than you would with other clouds. How is it faster? OCI's block storage gives you more operations per second cheaper. OCI costs up to 50% less for computing, 70% less for storage and 80% less for networking better. In test after test, OCI customers report lower latency and and higher bandwidth versus other clouds. This is the cloud built for AI and all your biggest workloads right now with zero commitment. Try OCI for free. Head to oracle.com strategic that's oracle.com strategic.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Have you ever been so sick that even the thought of standing up to go to the doctor made you even more sick? Amazon One Medical has 24. 7 virtual care so you can get help while horizontal and with Amazon Pharmacy you can get medicine delivered fast right to your door. You just have to make it to your door. Thanks to Amazon, Healthcare just got less painful. Member Week is here at Lowe's. Don't miss your chance to get up to 40% off hundreds of items like paint, faucets, vanities, doors and more. Shop our exclusive deals happening in store and online now through July 18th. Not a member? Join my Lowe's Pro Rewards for free today and get ready to save more. Lowe's we help you save loyalty programs subject to terms and conditions. Details@lowe's.com Terms subject to change.

[Tim Harford]

Pushkin On 10 November 2022, Sam Bankman Fried tweeted that he had ever as we explored in our last episode, that was something of an understatement. Ftx, the digital currency exchange platform where individuals could trade cryptocurrencies and store their funds for safekeeping, imploded when it emerged that Sam Bankman Fried had been diverting funds into his crypto hedge fund Alameda Research Fraud, yes, but as an effective altruist, he was doing it for a good cause, wasn't he? In his own misguided way, he thought he was just following the teachings of Will MacAskill, the founder of the Effective Altruism Movement. That can't be bad, can it? If you've not listened to that episode yet, Please do. Before listening to this special cautionary conversation with Michael Lewis, the man who had a ringside seat for the spectacular fall of the cryptocurrency wunderkind Michael. Welcome to Cautionary Tales.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Tim, good to see you again.

[Tim Harford]

It's great to see you. I think the last time we saw each other, I was trying to teach you how to play an obscure German board game.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

No, that's exactly right. I can't even remember what book led you to get interested. Maybe the Big Short.

[Tim Harford]

I think it was the Big Short. But the FT were like, oh, no, you can't just talk to Michael Lewis about his book. You have to talk to Michael Lewis about his book while you teach him a weird German board game.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I thought it was actually ingenious. Cause I try to do this with subjects, and especially if you only have a short time with them, you're so much better off doing something with someone than just talking to them if you're trying to kind of get some insight into how they tick. The best job interview I ever had. It was to lead teenage girls through Europe when I was 22 years old. I went to the tour agency, and the guy who ran the tour agency said, God, I forgot you had an interview this day. We're supposed to move the furniture from this office down the hall to the other office. Could you just help me do that? And then if we have time left over, we'll talk. And I spent an hour moving furniture with this guy. And I left. He said, I'll call you about the interview. And I left, bewildered. And like a week later, he said, you have the job. And two months later, I'm in a hotel room with my fellow leader in, like, Bruges. And I said, you know, this was odd. I was never interviewed. And I explained what happened. He said, I moved that furniture, too, back the other way. And it was a really smart way to kind of figure out whether someone was collaborative, whether they could pick up stuff quickly, how they interacted with people. So I took it as a sign. You were a clever journalist when you did this.

[Tim Harford]

Yeah, well. Or I have a clever editor. But yeah. Michael, I'm already feeling bad that I haven't brought a board game this time, but I'm sure we'll be fine. I'm sure we'll be fine. We are going to talk about the time you spent with Sam Bankman, Fried, what you made of him, what you made of the influence that effective altruism had on him. And we're also going to be answering listener questions and we'll be talking about your new book, who Is Government? But before all of that, here is the cautionary tales theme. The most remarkable thing about Going Infinite is that when you started working on it, you had no idea that you were going to be covering the fraud of the century. You were just intrigued by Sam Bankman Fried. And this book turned into a very different book during the course of writing it. And it feels like this is not the first time you've been in the right place at the right time. I'm curious, how. How is it that you find your subjects?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

You know, I stumbled into this. I had no idea that there was like fraud going on. So I was asked to evaluate him by an investor who was doing a deal with him. And it was a friend and I said sure. I had no idea who he was. He turns up on my doorstep in Berkeley and we spent a couple of hours together. And in a couple hours I realized I had this character who was one, he thought about the world in a very unusual way, in a very persuasive way. But two, he would possibly give me access to several places I wanted access. One was Jane street in the world of high frequency trading because he'd spent three years at Jane street and he'd hired a bunch of people out of there and they're notoriously opaque and woke talk to journalists. So I thought, ah, maybe I get to Jane street, throw him money in politics. Because he was handing out money left, right and center to American politicians and the crypto world, which he was very skeptical of. And so he wasn't a religionist, so he wasn't defensive about it. So I remember saying to him, I don't know where this is going to end up. Could I just hang out and watch? You know, he was the world's richest person under the age of 30 according to Forbes magazine. It wasn't the big brainwave on my part. It was kind of surprising he let me do it, especially in view of what was going to happen. So I just follow my nose. And my nose isn't like, oh, what's going to be the next big story? My nose is more what's not dull. And sometimes that works out, you know, sometimes that ends up being what you should be paying attention to.

[Tim Harford]

Yeah. So as you hung out with Sam Bankman fried more, you must have become aware of this whole effective altruism thing. Seemed to play a huge role in.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

His life and how he thought, you're exactly right. It kind of blew my mind. I'd never heard of this. The Idea that he had gone to Wall street with absolutely no interest in money. His parents were both law professors at Stanford. They're like non materialist people. They don't care about stuff, they don't care about money. You know, in another generation, he'd have been like a high school physics teacher or maybe a college professor. He was not the social type who goes to Wall Street. And he'd forced himself into it because he had discovered, before he discovered Wall street, this movement called effective altruism. That just resonated with him.

[Tim Harford]

Yeah.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

And it was.

[Tim Harford]

And seduced into it by the philosophers.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

And they proselytiz and they actually will. McGaskill told me. He said it turned out that the ideal market for these ideas were nerdy math, science people at American universities, people who were attracted to this kind of quantitative solution of how to lead your life, maximize the number of lives you save.

[Tim Harford]

I mean, just as an aside, I've been writing a column about the Trump administration's decision to cut foreign aid. And it's slightly controversial exactly how much foreign aid they've cut and exactly what they're cutting and the conflicting statements. But plausibly sensible. Independent analysts reckon that decision is going to kill a million people a year. And it's mostly people with hiv, although there are a few other things. There are some vaccinations, there's tuberculosis, but you have hiv, you have very effective medication. As long as you take the medication, you're fine. The moment you stop taking the medication, the virus starts to come back, and pretty soon you're going to die. And I'm writing about this, and somehow I can't quite get as outraged about those million people as if they were being rounded up and executed for being illegal immigrants or if they'd started some war that was likely to kill a million people. It just feels different somehow. Dead is dead.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Right. Part of the reason it feels different is it's a number. Right. Especially the bigger the number, it just becomes a number. You would feel much more outrage if you saw just a single child die. We don't respond to data, we respond to anecdote.

[Tim Harford]

Yeah. Unless you're Sam Bankman Fried, in which case.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Unless you're Sam Bankman Fried, which is onto the data. You know, there's a jumble of my previous books that are sort of popping into my head when he starts talking this way. One is Moneyball, Oakland A succeeded because they ignored the anecdote and looked to the data. And two was the undoing Project Economist and Tversky were all about the way our minds mislead us when we trust our intuitive sense of things rather than the data. It was interesting that this was wholly persuasive to this kind of person. And not just Sam Bankman Fried, but there was a whole crowd. I mean, it was cult like. As McCaskill said. They tend to be kind of on the spectrum. They tended to be male. They tend to be math or physics. They tend to be socially awkward. They were people who. For whom emotion was a weak guide to action. Whatever you or I feel that leads us to do things, they didn't feel so much. But they could talk themselves into using logic and numbers as a guide to action in the way that emotion is a guide to action for us.

[Tim Harford]

Are the numbers a better guide to action than emotions?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Depends on what you're doing.

[Tim Harford]

Yeah.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I mean, let's go back to the Moneyball case. Most of the time in baseball, there's statistical information that you are way better off being guided by than your nose every now and then. That's not true. But most of the time in life you don't really have the numbers. Like, how are you gonna decide who you're gonna marry or where you're gonna live or even where you're gonna go to college or even where you're gonna have dinner tonight? How do you reduce that to a statistical problem? We are kind of forced by the dearth of statistical information to constantly rely on our intuitive judgment. And so that it leaves us kind of sleepy and to the possibility that there is some statistical information that could inform our judgment. Often when there is, though, yes, I think it is better. Kahneman and Tversky showed just. It's amazing how even when you're looking at people we would all think of as experts, doctors, that algorithms outperform the experts when rendering diagnoses, that kind of thing.

[Tim Harford]

One of the things that struck me, exploring the story for cautionary tales was when effective altruism took this, what seems to be a little bit of a weird turn. So on the one hand, you've got the people who are like, okay, I've got $1,000 and I want to save the maximum number of lives. They crunch the numbers and they go, yeah, it's probably bed nets impregnated with anti mosquito pesticides. And if you give it, you give out a lot of bed nets. You could save a life for whatever, $1,000, $3,000. So it's cheap. It's cheap. And that's better than maybe spending the money on vaccinations. Even though vaccinations are good. And vaccinations are better than spending the money on work to improve governance. And improved governance is better than giving it to a donkey sanctuary, because all of the donkeys are living in luxury. They're all fine. So that all makes sense up to that point. You go, the effective altruists are on it.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I'm with them.

[Tim Harford]

This is great.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I'm with them too. So I feel the same way. I'm with them too. They just make me, at that point, they just make me feel guilty for how I'm living my life.

[Tim Harford]

And then they start having these conversations like, well, you know, there could be a lot of people in the world in the future. The future could go on for a very long time. We could be talking about trillions of people. We could be talking about intergalactic civilizations or human civilization lasting a million years. But maybe AI ruins all that. So maybe if we have a workshop about AI safety, maybe there's only a one in a billion chance that it will do anything. But if it does something, it could save a trillion lives. So a one in a billion chance of saving a trillion lives, that's 1,000 lives. That's really good. And so it's totally worth spending $50,000 on our AI workshop. At which point you start like, where did it go wrong? Or are they right? Am I wrong?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

So I had exactly same feeling. It jumped the Shark around 2012. And Toby Ord writes this book about existential risk where he's putting numbers on the likelihood of various events wiping out humanity. And it's AI and pandemics and meteor strikes and nuclear war, so on and so forth. Very hard to put numbers on that. But of course, you can't do the calculations without the numbers. So they just accept roughly good numbers. And it's just not at all clear to me. The numbers are okay at all. The math becomes much shakier. That's one thing that happens. The numbers become much bigger. You're not just talking about saving lives in Africa right now. You're talking about all future humanity, infinite people. And so the sums of money required to address these problems also becomes much, much bigger. $1,000 will be useful in Africa right now. $1,000 right now to prevent AI from eating US all. One day is nothing. Sam Bankman Fried sits down and does a back of the envelope calculation. He thinks he needs at least $100 billion to make a dent in this or that problem. So all of a sudden it gets very grandiose and it's completely. Even if they were never entirely interested in the emotional resonance of saving the life of a small child in Africa today. There was at least some emotional content there. And all of a sudden it vanishes. It's purely an abstract math problem. And then, of course, as you just said, what can't you justify when the numbers are that big, the number of people you're gonna save that big, what can't you justify doing to attack the problem? It seems perfectly rational to do whatever you need to do to make $100 billion to eliminate or at least defray this existential risk.

[Tim Harford]

Yeah, this is the end of the world we're talking about, the end of human civilization. You should be able to cut some corners at that point.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

So what you're doing also, if you think about it, is you're puffing yourself up. You're a superhero now. You're now going to save humanity. You may only be increasing the odds that humanity is saved by a few percentile, but nevertheless, you're in the realm of saving humanity. So it creates a grandiosity to the whole thing.

[Tim Harford]

And, well, as I understand it, Sam Bankman Fried would have said, if I'm giving myself a 5% chance of saving the world, then I'm 5% of Superman. Right.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

There we go. So this is how he was thinking when I first met him. And I thought it was bonkers, but I thought it was interesting. It's not wrong. It's not obviously wrong. It's probably obviously right that there are these extinction level events that could happen.

[Tim Harford]

Yeah.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The question is like, is it bonkers to think you could do much about them? Yeah, there's something that goes on when you're doing things that have such a remote probability of having any effect. It's very different from buying a bed net and saving a kid. The degree of uncertainty gets so high. And so when you look at how what happened to the EA movement around Sam, they had their arguments about this, but the people who move with Sam all bought into, you know, we're saving humanity. And they left behind a collection of original EA's who sort of disapproved and who continued to, you know, buy bed nets for kids in Africa.

[Tim Harford]

Do you think it is fair to blame effective altruism for what Sam Bankman Fried did and, you know, the fraud and him going to prison and all of that? To what extent can you track it all back to effective altruism?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Can we assign fractional blame?

[Tim Harford]

I think that's totally in the spirit of the whole.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Okay, let's. In the spirit of Sam Bankman Fried, let's do little shares of blame. So I would say the little sliver of blame that effective altruism gets is in how it was sold to the Sam Bankman Fried's of the world. You are this nerd with a high sense of your own self importance. But it hasn't been appreciated by the world who is coming of age in a world where very weirdly you can get rich very quickly because your particular gifts are all of a sudden in demand at Jane street and Hudson River Trading and Citadel and all these quantitative trading shops and also tech firms. So all of a sudden you're the most monetizable 22 year old on the planet, maybe a professional athlete. And if you unleash your money making skills for the good of this movement, you're a superhero. They're given a kind of license to behave in unorthodox ways.

[Tim Harford]

Maybe it never occurred to Will that somebody would oh I guess I could commit a massive fraud and as long as I save the planet, that's fine. It possibly never occurred to the philosophers that anybody would think to do that.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

That's a funny thing you say that I think that's possible. So I think if Sam Bankman Fried is a creature of anything effective, altruism is really important. But so is Jane street. The high frequency trading world they live to game systems. You're in there to figure out how to game markets and people who are really good at playing the game are the people who win. And Sam was really good at playing the game. Obviously you're not supposed to break the law, but it puts you in a certain frame of mind when all you're doing is gaming markets day after day after day. You're looking for little edges. And if I were to sign another sliver of blame, kind of the grown up world of finance. It was obvious to anybody who walked into the FTX that there was a basic conflict of interest. He had this private trading firm that he'd started first out of which grew this public crypto exchange and that his private trading firm traded on the crypto exchange and was in a little hut next door to it in the Bahamas. So some blame there. But of course also blame to Sam. What is it in Sam that leads him to do this? You know, he danced his way out of lots of problems before. I think he thought he was smart. So smart that he could kind of figure this out. And in fairness to him, I think he was overwhelmed. If you'd seen their business, your first reaction would be this is pure Chaos. There's no organization chart. No one knows who the job actually is. The corporate psychiatrist is the person who knows the most about the business because he's the only one everybody talks to. You know, it was like one thing like that after another. What it didn't feel like and still doesn't feel like to me, and I get in trouble when I say things like this is malice. What he wasn't and isn't is like this natural crook. He doesn't have cruelty in him, oddly. He doesn't have a lot of dishonesty in him. He has some. But up to the moment it's discovered that he has the money in the wrong place, that he's used his customer's money, do all kinds of things he didn't have permission to do. There's not really a trace in Sam Bankman's Freed's life of criminal behavior or corrupt behavior. Didn't cheat on tests, didn't cheat at golf, never played golf. You know, you go back to his childhood, there's no sign of anything like this. And so it's not like this is who he is. It makes it even a weirder event.

[Tim Harford]

Do you think he was a kind person or is a kind person?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Yes, I mean, you know, qualify it. But he behaved very well to the little people around him who helped him. He would get worked up and scream every now and then. But I think because he was on the receiving end of it when he was a kid a lot, I think he was highly sensitive to suffering. I think suffering bothered him. And he was also highly averse to conflict. Like, he was really uncomfortable getting into conflict. He'd go and hide rather than fight. Every now and then he'd get upset and everybody around him would get scared. But it was very private. It was like watching a little volcano go off. So, yeah, I think he is basically the clan person. And he, to this day, I'm still in touch with him. He writes a prison diary, and he sends it to me. He's pretty careful about his interactions with other people. He's in no conflict. People kind of like him because he kind of watches out for them a bit. I mean, what he did was really wrong, but when, you know, his personality, it's even stranger. He did it.

[Tim Harford]

Interesting. Very interesting. Well, Michael, stay with us. I'm going to give you questions from our loyal listeners, particularly on the subject of kindness and altruism, and we shall hear them after the break.

[Unknown]

Run a business and not thinking about podcasting. Think again. More Americans listen to podcasts than ad supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora. And as the number one podcaster, iHeart's twice as large as the next two combined. So whatever your customers listen to, they'll hear your message. Plus, only iHeart can extend your message to audiences across broadcast radio. Think podcasting can help your business? Think iHeart streaming radio and podcasting. Call 844-844 iHeart to get started. That's 844-844, iHeart.

[Tim Harford]

We're back. I'm talking to Michael Lewis, the author of Going the Rise and Fall of a New Tycoon, a book which tells the story of Sam Bankman Fried, the world's most infamous effective altruists. And Michael, we've asked our listeners to send in their questions about altruism. Are you game for answering a few?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Sure.

[Tim Harford]

So here's one from I think from Nochum. Apologies if I've mispronounced your name. They write as an admirer of Mr. Lewis's books since Liars Poker. When I heard he was answering questions about altruism, I had to ask this. According to the latest data I could find the most important cause for effective altruists after poverty and health is AI risk. There are real challenges to the adoption of AI, but to put it so high on the list of causes to donate to seems misguided at best. Can you explain how AI overtook such obvious harms as global warming or the public benefits of the spread of free markets, free speech, or democracy as the greatest good an effective altruist can do all the best? No.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Come this is one of those really great questions that I probably can't answer satisfactorily, but it is a great question. I think in the minds of Sam Bankman Frieden and the people around him, they thought of these existential risks in two ways. How salient are they? How likely are they to cause problems to actually happen? And how tractable are they? What can we actually do about this? And in Sam Bankman Fried's mind, when he did that calculation, it wasn't AI that bubbled to the surface. It was pandemics. He threw much more money into pandemic prevention than AI. Even though he thought AI was the greater risk, he couldn't figure out what to do about it.

[Tim Harford]

Would this have been pre Covid when he was throwing money into pandemic prevention?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

It was pre Covid when he was thinking about it. When he started to have real money, we were in the thick of COVID It was like if a really even more deadly one comes along how can we be better at defending ourselves against it or detecting it and preventing it in the first place kind of thing. The one move he made in AI prevention, other than funding people with small sums of money who had interesting ideas, but he bought a big chunk of anthropic, which was the kind of salon de refuse for OpenAI. People who thought that OpenAI wasn't paying enough attention to the risks. And that, funny enough, ended up being, you know, worth many, many billions of dollars to his creditors. So why were they so alive to AI as an existential risk? Because your questioner's right. It's not obvious. It's not obvious to me.

[Tim Harford]

Let me flip it around and say, why are they not worried about climate change as an existential risk, for example?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The answer to that is they think that climate change, no matter how bad it gets, they'll still be human beings alive.

[Tim Harford]

Yeah. And they're probably right. I mean, it's not going to turn the Earth into Venus. Right. It could make things really uncomfortable. We could really regret we didn't do more earlier, but the idea that it, that it ends the human race seems unlikely. So they're looking for things that will actually end it. Absolutely. End human civilization. And there, I guess you're looking at nuclear weapons and AI are more plausible.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Maybe that's right. AI had the capacity to do the job completely, in a way even pandemic wouldn't. I don't even think nuclear weapons are that plausible. So they could play out a scenario where there were no longer people because of AI.

[Tim Harford]

It throws a light on this, the difference between a long term, effective altruist and the rest of us, the rest of us would go, hey, if there was a nuclear war and 99% of the human race was killed and the rest of us were reduced to the Stone Age and had to build from scratch, that sounds incredibly bad. Whereas for an effective altruist, they're like, well, if you think really long term.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Yeah.

[Tim Harford]

On a 2 million year time horizon.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

That's right.

[Tim Harford]

It's not the worst thing.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

It just shows you where you can go when you're untethered from normal human feeling and convention. That's the real thing about the effect of altruist is that at bottom it's a status movement. It's a group of people who feel underappreciated, slightly ostracized, who know in some ways they're smarter than their peers. Essentially, the starting point is everybody else is stupid. They don't know and it takes them to weird places.

[Tim Harford]

Let Me throw in a thought from listener Matt. I'm going to paraphrase, but it's relevant, I think, to what you're just saying, Michael. So Matt conjures up the idea that people who eat meat are, in a way, very good for pigs and chickens and cows in the same way that.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

People who want ducks are very good for ducks. Because you created the need for these animals to exist.

[Tim Harford]

Yeah. You know, if a Martian came down and looked and said, you know, what are the dominant species on Earth? Then there's a good case that some of the dominant species are the species that humans eat. And the reason they're dominant there are so many of them, have taken over all these different ecosystems is because that's what the humans want anyway. He draws a parallel between that perspective and effective altruism. Is it too harsh to think of effective altruists as benign butchers ready to sacrifice real people today for the sake of a notional gain to humankind over eons? So there's no end to the suffering you can tolerate today as long as you're maximizing the quantity of humanity in the long run?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I'd be willing to play this game with him. Except the effective altruists themselves did not acknowledge they were willing to inflict suffering on people today. They just thought they were shifting their attention from people today to people in the future. They were shifting their neglect, if you want to think about it the other way. So they weren't actively thinking of themselves as inflicting suffering on present humans.

[Tim Harford]

Although Sam did.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Although Sam did. Although the logic of their argument would lead them to do it if necessary. Yes.

[Tim Harford]

Interesting question from Victor. Victor asks, why is no one talking about why we need altruism in the first place? What are we doing wrong as societies that some people are left behind and there's a need for altruism. I suppose this gets to the idea of if you had a benign government or if you had the right rules or the invisible hand of Adam Smith. But if we somehow organize society better, no one would have to be kind or altruistic because all these problems would be solved anyway.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

This is a fair question, too. Without human sympathy, let's not call it altruism. Let's just call it kind of a basic sympathy for our fellow creatures. Without that, why would you bother to organize society in a kinder way like that is what's at the bottom of attempts to organize society so that you don't need it. It's a funny situation in a way, because when I think of altruism that kind of selflessness. Every time you scratch the surface, you find some human motive for what they're doing. Selfish might be too strong, but it's not exactly selfless. So when you ask this question, my mind goes in a completely different direction and my mind goes in the direction of do we actually even have altruism? Is there such a thing? I think it's more complicated than that. The minute you were sitting in a room with Sam Bankman Fried and his fellow effective altruists at ftx, you realized they were engaged in a kind of competition with other effective altruists. Who's gonna be the biggest deal in the effective altruist community? It's like, who's gonna save the most future lives? They never put it quite so crudely, but it was in the air.

[Tim Harford]

Maybe that's good. You've got these kind of killer competitive instincts. And it could be people killing each other with machetes, or it could be Wall street traders trying to make the most money.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The beauty of early Sam Bankman Fried and his crowd was so we have this machine called Wall Street. It has gotten better and better at extracting rents. The people who are the peak predators on Wall street now are the High frequency traders, the Citadels, the Jane Streets, the Jump Trading, the Hudson River Trading Virtu. All these places generating more money for individuals than have ever been generated on Wall street before. And all of a sudden the kind of person who's good at that has this religion about giving the money away. I thought for a brief moment there was this kind of Robin Hood thing that might go on. And in fact, Jane street, which is the leader of the pack, Jane street, started to worry that too many of the people that they were recruiting were effective altruists. And the problem with the effective altruists is they couldn't control them in the way you control a normal person who just wants a fourth house and a third yacht. They didn't have the same materialist needs. They were doing it for this kind of quasi religious reason. And it made them much harder to manage. But I thought, what a great problem. Wouldn't it be cool if instead of like reforming Wall street, cause we'll never do it, that it sort of weirdly reformed itself. Because the kind of person who got into the position of making the most money felt like it was his religion to give it away? That would have been cool.

[Tim Harford]

Yeah, it would have been.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Would have been.

[Tim Harford]

So a quick question from our listener Richard, which I think is tied to that point. It's an etiquette question, really? He says, if you give money to charity, should you tell everybody about it or should you just do it? Should you just do it quietly? On the one hand, you should do it quietly because it's undignified and it's not about you, it's about the charity. But on the other hand, if you tell your friends you're giving money to charity, then maybe that will encourage them to give as well.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Oh, that's an interesting way to put it. I don't think people who put their names on buildings are doing it because they want to encourage other people to put their names on buildings. It's self advertisement. I was raised to be very quiet about this sort of thing, that when you give money, you always list it as anonymous. I've had organizations ask, we put our name on it, and I said, and when they want that, I let them do it. My answer to the etiquette question is let the recipient decide whether they want your name on it or not, what's better for the recipient, and do whatever is better for them.

[Tim Harford]

Thank you, Michael. Brilliant answers. Hold on with us and let's talk about your new book, who Is Government? After the break.

[Unknown]

Run a business and not thinking about podcasting, Think again. More Americans listen to podcasts than ad supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora. And as the number one podcaster, iHeart's twice as large as the next two combined. So whatever your customers listen to, they'll hear your message. Plus, only iHeart can extend your message to audiences across broadcast radio. Think podcasting can help your business. Think iHeart streaming radio and podcasting. Let us show [e-mail] that's iheartadvertising.com we're back.

[Tim Harford]

I'm here with my fellow Pushkin podcaster, the brilliant writer, Michael Lewis. Michael, you very kindly agreed to come on the podcast and talk about Sam Bankman fried and talk about going infinite. And then I got a message saying, oh, by the way, Michael has a new book out. You should probably ask him some questions about that. I have to admit, my heart sank a little bit. I thought, I don't really have time to read another book in preparation for this podcast. And of course, the moment I opened the first page, I was immediately drawn in and I loved the book, so congratulations. But tell us about who is government.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

So I wrote a book about or set in the first Trump administration called the Fifth Risk, where I wandered around the administration, the executive branch, and got essentially an education from the various departments that Trump himself refused to get so how the Agriculture Department worked, how the Energy Department worked, what went on inside these places. And the longer I spent there, the more taken I was with the actual characters in government. Whatever the stereotype of the bureaucrat is in the American mind, they violated it. There were these breathtakingly devoted public servants who were experts in all kinds of arcane and in some cases, spine tingly, frightening fields, who were doing the work that kept the society together. And I thought, you know, there really was a project coming back and just doing profiles of these people. And it wasn't so much because I saw Doge coming. I'm surprised Doge came. It was more. More that I thought just generally the conversation around American government had gotten so dumb because people didn't really appreciate what the government did and who the people were who did it. So I recruited six writers. Dave Eggers, John Lanchester, Geraldine Brooks, Casey, Sepp Kamau Bell and Sarah Vall. None of them really conventional journalists. Kamau Bell's a standup comedian. Dave and Geraldine, mostly novelists, same as John, and just dropped them into the government, said, look, find a story. And I did two of them. And the idea was just like, inoculate the American public against these really stupid critiques of their government. I mean, these things ran one by one each week in the eight weeks running up to the election. And then we put them together book because they got so much attention. The thing that really got me was actually the quality of the material. Like, that first story is about a guy named Chris Mark who figured out how to prevent the roofs of coal mines falling in on the heads of coal miners. And you think, well, that's an arcane problem. And how big a deal could that be? 50,000American coal miners killed by roof falls in the last century, and who knows how many more around the world. And there was just an imperfect science in how to keep the roof of a coal mine up. And how this person comes to his expertise, why he does it, how he does it, is literate. It was just like this stuff of novels. You find that over and over again in the government.

[Tim Harford]

The story about Christopher Mark, we don't want too many spoilers, but his father is kind of, among other things, an expert in why Gothic cathedrals don't fall down.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

And he rebels against the father.

[Tim Harford]

Yeah, they don't get on at all.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

They don't get on. He leaves home and refuses to get a college education. He goes and joins the working class and then essentially reprises his father's career underground. And when I tell him that he gets angry at me. No, it has nothing to do with my father. Yes, My father figured out how the roofs of Gothic cathedrals don't fall down, but that has nothing to do with how the roofs of coal mines don't fall down.

[Tim Harford]

Yeah. And of course, it's the same problem.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

It's the same.

[Tim Harford]

Basically, there's some little differences, but, yes.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

From any kind of perspective outside of his own, it's the same problem. And so that there were these psychological portraits to draw that were just fun. I don't know how you think about what you do. I think about what I do is like gold mining. I'm a prospector. I wander around the mountains of California, kicking up dirt under my feet, looking for a place where I can sink my pick and maybe find some gold. And it's kind of random when I find it. There's not a great science to the finding of the gold. You get good at sort of analyzing the landscape. You get a sense of where this might be and where it might not be. But it's still a lot of luck involved. And I felt that with the Fifth Risk, I found this unbelievably rich vein of ore. I could only scoop out a fraction of it because there was so much of it. And I was working with my hands, and I had a bucket on my back, and there was all this stuff left behind, and I thought it would all be gone by the time I came back to it. And in fact, it's like no one bothered to go find the mine. No one's interested.

[Tim Harford]

There's this line by Geraldine Brooks, one of the writers in who is Government? She's profiling a guy who is a jiu jitsu instructor, tennis coach, fights terrorists and pedophiles, but is a qualified accountant and works for the Inland Revenue Service. And she says, you know, if this was a novel, this would be malpractice.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Right.

[Tim Harford]

You can't just make this sort of stuff up. But because it happens to be true and this guy is a real person, I'm actually allowed to have him as a character in this story.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

And it tells you something. This person who is like the profit center of the United States government because he's busting up cybercrime rings and raking in their bitcoin and sticking it in the treasury. He's generated billions with his team, billions of dollars of free money for the government, and the Trump administration has disabled him. They fired half his unit, and he can't do what he did before that. Our population isn't just Completely outraged by this is incredible to me. But they wouldn't know to be outraged unless you knew the story. And you only know the story if you read Geraldine's piece because it's not in the news. Otherwise it's astonishing.

[Tim Harford]

And he, he busted paedophile rings. There's one point where somebody from Hamas tweets and says, oh, you can donate to the revolutionary cause, send your Bitcoin to this address. And he redirects it, basically hacks their bank account. I have to say the details of exactly how this happened are lost on me. But anybody who donated bitcoin, it ended up going to victims of state sponsored terrorism, right? And anybody who clicked on the Hamas logo got directed to Rick Astley singing Never Gonna Give youe Up. So who says that bureaucrats don't have a sense of humor?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Oh, no, they do. What they don't have, by and large, is a sense of themselves as characters. This was the thing that all the writers came away thinking, they felt like I'd find this person who'd done this unbelievable thing and I'd say, I wanna talk to you about it. He goes, well, it wasn't really me, it was the team. You really have to talk to my bosses. It was very little ego. I guess what it is, these jobs self select for people who really like doing big important things but don't about credit or money. It's hard to believe that such people still exist in American life. Everybody else seems to be looking for fame and fortune. These are sort of like the opposite of reality TV stars. They got interested in a problem, they've worried the problem to death for 30 years. It's had enormous consequences and they don't expect anybody to pay attention.

[Tim Harford]

And you get nervous when people do, or at least the bureaucracy around them gets nervous.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Well, that's right. That's really actually an important point because that was the other thing all the writers noticed. And this is maybe by a way to explain why there's this inefficiency in information about this, is that the bureaucracy has gotten so used to all attention being bad attention.

[Tim Harford]

So a journalist shows up and says, I'd just like to know what you're doing and why you're doing it.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

And they assume this is gonna end with a congressional hearing and me getting fired and humiliated and prevented from doing anything for the rest of my life.

[Tim Harford]

Whereas in fact, it's like, no, I just wanna know what you're doing because it's amazing what you're doing and I wanna tell everyone what you're Doing that's right in.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

They themselves are not as wary because they aren't doing anything bad. It's the political people above them are worried that this story will somehow make the White House look bad, and they can't imagine how it would make the White House look good.

[Tim Harford]

Yeah. And there is a story to be told, I think, also about how the poor reputation of government bureaucracy just makes their life harder, irrespective of the politics itself. I think you profiled the woman who studies rare diseases.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Yes. So she doesn't really study rare diseases. She's had a bunch of them. Her name's Heather Stone. And let me just tell you how I found her, because that sort of explains what her role is in the world. So back when I was working on my Covid book, the Premonition, one of the characters was a researcher named Joe derisi, who's like, he was a superhero in bio research. And Joe, he was working on Covid, but at the same time, he had discovered what he thought might be a treatment for a rare brain eating amoeba called Ballamouthia. I'd never heard of this thing. Nobody had ever heard of this thing. It was discovered in, like, the 1990s in the San Diego Zoo.

[Tim Harford]

But subsequently, now, I'm now having nightmares about it. So thank you for telling me.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

It's terrifying. It should be, yeah. Because there's some tens of thousands of cases each year in the United States of people dying of unidentified encephalitis. It's like something's going on in their brain and they never figure it out. They die. It's just encephalitis. There was a woman whose brain was being eaten by something. They couldn't figure out what rolls into the UCSF emergency room. Joe gets involved. Eventually she dies. He gets involved too late. But he's able to identify the bug that's in her brain, and it's this Ballamuthia mandrillis. It's called. It's a brain eating amoeba. He then very cleverly, he says, well, what could you do to treat this? In his lab, he has his graduate students bombard Ballamouthia with every drug that's been approved either in Europe or the United States, and find that one drug, a UTI drug used in Europe called nitroxyline, kills the Ballamouthia. Clearly, it doesn't kill people. People are taking it for UTIs. So, like, why not try this? And lo and behold, even though it's rare, pretty shortly thereafter, someone else rolls into the Emergency room has the same symptoms. They find he has balamuthi in his brain. They give him the nitroxyline, and he survives.

[Tim Harford]

Yeah.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I say to him, I said, man, that's great. Now everybody will know there's at least something you can treat it with. And he says, nope, doesn't work that way. He said, maybe we'll be able to publish a scientific paper. Maybe doctors will notice it. But there's every possibility that if you roll into a hospital with Ballamouthi anywhere else in America, that they won't even know we did this work.

[Tim Harford]

There's two problems, right? So one problem is you didn't run a randomized trial, so you can't be sure. Maybe it was a fluke.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Correct.

[Tim Harford]

It's still interesting that you had a theory and you gave him the drug and he got better. So maybe. But then your second problem is, how do you tell people that maybe.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Yes, but with these rare diseases, you're never gonna have a randomized trial. And when they're fatal, if you roll in, Tim, with Ballamouthia in your brain, would you rather them throw some nitroxyline in you or not? If they don't, we know what's gonna happen if they don't. So your brain is gonna get eaten. That's bad. So why not? And the other side of this is that because it's a rare disease, the pharmaceutical industry has no interest in it. It's like, there's no money in it. Not enough people are gonna have this happen to them. By the way, the way you apparently get it is by ingesting dirt. So be careful with dirt when you're gardening. Don't put your hands to your mouth. Anyway, so Joe says to me, this is a natural place for, like, government to intervene, to at least collate, because people like me are doing this stuff all the time. And there's a woman in the Food and Drug Administration named Heather Stone who is kind of all by herself, basically decided to tackle this problem. She's created an app that tried to gather every instance, every of a rare disease being treated around the world, how it was treated, and what the outcome was. There's hope for people who have rare diseases, but the government does not have the energy anymore to get behind Heather Stone's creation. They're unwilling to really promote it. She's a woman on her own, like, going to medical conferences, trying to persuade doctors to plug in their rare disease treatment, their cases into her app. It's going nowhere. What happens, the story, in the end, is about A little girl, a six year old girl in Arkansas who rolls in and takes them forever to find out she's got ballamouthia. But she has ballamuthia. The completely screwed up way in which her life is saved. The little girl in Arkansas's parents google around and find that Heather Stone has been thanked by Joe derisi for helping him get his hands on nitroxyline. And they get personally in touch with her and she makes sure that they get the drug and her life is saved. But at the very same time, just like 40 miles from Joe Derisi's office in California, another little girl got ballamouthia, never heard of the cure and died. And it's sort of like a parable of good and bad government. Like, do you. What kind of government do you want to have? A government that is emboldened and strengthened to actually follow through on this really good idea of how to deal with an intractable problem? Or a government that actually has kind of lost its spirit and its energy because she created the app Cure id, it's called. It should be useful. It should be something people pay attention to. It should be something that the government throws its credibility behind. But then, you know, the government has less credibility. And it's a story of the frustrating, of the impulses of people who previously might have done really great things in the government. So it's a sad story. It's a sad story masquerading as a happy story, but a kind of amazing story.

[Tim Harford]

It's absolutely amazing.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

There's this thing that kind of springs from between the lines of the whole book. These people feel like people who have figured out the way to lead a meaningful life. And this brings us back to effective altruism. One of the keys to a meaningful life is to find ways outside of yourself, find ways to live for things other than yourself. You know, Sam Bankman Fried groped towards this in his own weird way. These people put their finger on it right away. There are problems I can solve and it will help others and never mind how much I'm paid or whether I'm acknowledged for it. And I'm not wired to do that. I need more attention than I should. But they are and we should be just grateful for them instead of heaping scorn and derision upon them.

[Tim Harford]

I've been talking to Michael Lewis. Michael is the author of Going Infinite and a new book with co authors who is government. Michael, it's been great to talk to you. Thank you.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Always fun, Tim.

[Tim Harford]

And you can listen to Michael's podcast against the rules wherever you get your podcasts. As for me, I will be back next week with another cautionary tale. For a full list of our sources, see the show notes@tim harford.com Cautionary Tales is written by me, Tim Harford with Andrew Wright, Alice Fiennes and Ryan Dilley. It's produced by Georgia Mills and Marilyn Rusty. The sound design and original music are the work of Pascal Wise. Additional sound design is by Carlos San Juan at Brain Audio. Ben Nadaff Haffrey edited the scripts. The show features the voice talents of Melanie Guttridge, Stella Harford, Oliver Hembrough, Sarah Jupp, Misea Munro, Jamal Westman and Rufus Wright. The show also wouldn't have been possible without the work of Jacob Weisberg, Greta Cohn, Sarah Nix, Eric Sandler, Carrie Brodie, Christina Sullivan, Keira Posey and Owen Miller. Cautionary Tales is a production of Pushkin Industries. It's recorded at Wardour Studios in London by Tom Berry. If you like the show, please remember to share, rate and review. It really makes a difference to us. And if you want to hear the show ad free, sign up to Pushkin plus on the show page on Apple Podcasts or at Pushkin fm.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with.

[Tim Harford]

The price of just about everything going up, we thought we'd bring our prices down.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

So to help us we brought in a reverse auctioneer which is apparently a.

[Tim Harford]

Thing Mint Mobile Unlimited Premium Wireless everybody to get 3030 beta get 30 better get 202020 better get 2020 everybody get 15151515 just 15 bucks a month.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

So give it a [e-mail] switch upfront payment of $45 for a three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required.

[Unknown]

New customer offer for first three months only.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of network's busy taxes and mobile.com you're great at.

[Michael Lewis]

Protecting your own personal information. You probably even use things like two factor authentication, strong passwords and a vpn. But as much as you try to be in control of how your information is protected, there are lots of places that also have it and they might not be as careful as you are. That's why LifeLock monitors millions of data points every second for identity threats. If your identity is stolen, a LifeLock US based restoration specialist will help solve identity theft issues on your behalf, guaranteed or your money back. Plus, all LifeLock plans are backed by the million dollar protection package, meaning LifeLock will reimburse you up to the limits of your plan. If you lose money due to identity theft, you might not be able to control how others handle your personal information, but you can help protect it with LifeLock. Save up to 40% your first year. Call 1-800-LIFELOCK and use promo code IHEARTRA or go to lifelock.com iheart for 40% off.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Terms apply know what's underrated Winning at the checkout line with the Verizon Visa card, you win by getting 4% in rewards on things you buy all the time, including grocery store purchases, gas, and dining out. As a cardholder, you can even use those earned rewards toward your Verizon bill or a new smartwatch. Apply [e-mail] Verizon Visacard application required. Subject to credit approval. Must be a Verizon Mobile account owner or manager or files account owner. See verizon.com Verizon Visa card for terms and restrictions. The Verizon Visa Signature Card is issued by Synchrony bank pursuant to a license from Visa USA Inc.

[Unknown]

This is an iHeart podcast.