Slate Money Podcast Summary

Episode: “Gambling on the Globes & Geopolitics”
Date: January 17, 2026
Host: Felix Salmon (A), with Elizabeth Spiers (B) & Emily Peck (C)

Overview

This episode of Slate Money explores three major themes:

• The mainstreaming of gambling and prediction markets via events like the Golden Globes
• A dramatic DOJ lawsuit against Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell and its political fallout
• China’s ascendance as the world’s leader in university research output, overtaking U.S. institutions

The co-hosts balance analysis, sharp takes, and personal anecdotes while dissecting the state of American business, finance, and geopolitics.

Segment 1: Betting, Prediction Markets, & Polymarket at the Golden Globes

[02:18 - 14:43]

Key Points

• Polymarket, a crypto-based offshore prediction market, actively partnered with the Golden Globes, displaying live betting odds during the event.
• There's unease and controversy over normalizing betting on non-sporting outcomes, especially things perceived as serious (for example, “Best Documentary” about Gaza), blurring lines between entertainment and ethics.
• In the U.K., betting on all sorts of events is normalized and legal, but the U.S. is seeing unprecedented integration of betting markets into cultural programming.
• The debate around whether such integration is “harmful” is nuanced—hosts touch on ethics, aesthetics, and potential conflicts of interest.
• Concerns are raised about insider trading: both “knowing the outcome in advance” (classic trading) and “controlling the outcome” (e.g., throwing a game or manipulating an event).
• Current U.S. regulatory gaps allow companies like Polymarket and Kalshi to evade stricter sports betting oversight by being under the CFTC's more permissive regime.

Notable Quotes

• Felix: “If it's a liberty gibbet game, like the Super Bowl, who cares?...But if it's the Best Documentary at the Golden Globes, that’s serious. We shouldn’t be doing frivolous things like betting.”
  (05:15)
• Elizabeth: “The Globes are supposed to be about rewarding artistic achievement. People don’t think of it as a game.”
  (04:34)
• Emily: “The Globes has always been known as, like, the award show where celebrities go and they get really drunk. It’s not the Oscars or anything...”
  (06:12)

Memorable Moments

• Felix breaks down prediction market odds versus outcomes, noting that “getting it right” isn’t the same as market efficiency.
  (07:02 - 08:10)
• Emily highlights Polymarket’s marketing as perfectly in-character for the Golden Globes’ “trashiness.”
  (06:11)
• Felix describes two types of insider trading, calling outcome-control “really weird,” and relays examples like a press secretary ending a conference to match a bet.
  (09:44 - 11:23)

Segment 2: Prediction Markets, Insider Trading, and Legal Loopholes

[14:43 - 21:16]

Key Points

• Most prediction markets are functionally used for sports betting, which migrates from traditional bookies to digital exchanges like Kalshi or Polymarket.
• Regulatory arbitrage allows prediction markets to operate in a legal gray area, under-regulated by the CFTC, and traditional sports betting companies are frustrated by the competition.
• Legal and ethical issues: betting on inside information (e.g., war, exec decisions) is either not clearly illegal, or falls outside headline securities law; regulatory bodies are not catching up.
• The debate about whether insider trading actually helps markets reflect reality ("price discovery") is discussed, with Felix expressing some sympathy for the idea.

Notable Quotes

• Elizabeth: “When you legalize sports betting in a state, poverty rates go up. Does this exacerbate that? ...Is it a tax on poverty?” (14:43)
• Felix: "There are very few people in the prediction market world who want to try to prevent insider trading. ... It makes the markets more efficient and because it's kind of a victimless crime." (17:03)

Timestamps for Key Moments

• Regulatory arbitrage and why sports books are angry: (12:01 – 14:43)
• Poverty and betting as a regressive tax: (14:43 – 15:46)
• Efficient markets versus insider trading ethics: (16:03 – 17:40)

Segment 3: DOJ Sues Jay Powell – Fed Independence Under Threat

[26:52 - 36:55]

Key Points

• The DOJ launched a criminal investigation against Fed Chair Jay Powell, which swiftly provoked bipartisan, institutional, and even international support for Powell.
• Claudia Sahm’s analysis underscores Powell’s uniqueness as a bipartisan figure—a rarity in the current political climate.
• The lawsuit appears to have boomeranged: strengthening perceptions of Fed independence, at least in the short term.
• There are concerns about the effect on the succession after Powell, whose term ends soon, especially if political attacks (and the risk of criminal investigations) become normalized.
• Potential worst-case: a revolving door of Fed chairs unable to do Trump’s bidding, preserving independence but creating instability; true worst-case: political control over interest rates and collapse of Fed independence.

Notable Quotes

• Felix: “This is the best thing...that could have happened to the Fed. It has strengthened the Fed. It has shown that the Fed has massive support.” (27:07)
• Emily: “He’s a unicorn. Coming up behind him is no one else like him...This is going to happen again.” (28:38)
• Elizabeth: “They [Republicans] don’t have to believe the investigation is wrong...They want him for very pragmatic, market driven reasons.” (35:40)

Memorable Moments

• Emily describes Powell as “a unicorn” and notes “there aren’t any other...coming up behind him.” (28:38)
• Felix uses Polymarket odds imagery to estimate the “low” probability of Trump actually gaining de facto control of the Fed (10%). (33:08)
• Laughter about MAGA internecine drama involving poster-board policymaking at Mar-a-Lago. (36:31)

Segment 4: China Takes the Lead in Research University Rankings

[40:40 - 50:22]

Key Points

• China has surged ahead in university research output, now dominating global rankings (like the Leiden ranking), while the U.S. stagnates or declines.
• This is a result of sustained, large-scale Chinese state investment in research, science, and technology; U.S. research funding is being cut, especially under current (Trump) administration.
• Attacks on U.S. higher education (culture wars, funding cuts, immigration restrictions) exacerbate the problem, driving talent and innovation away.
• Investments in Chinese universities have real global consequences—e.g., dominance in cheap solar panels and EVs.
• The panel laments America’s cultural undervaluing of education compared to China.

Notable Quotes

• Felix: “Nearly all the top institutions—with the possible exception of Harvard—are Chinese according to one ranking...any ranking based on research output…is going to be overwhelmingly dominated by Chinese institutions.” (40:40)
• Elizabeth: “They just cannot connect the idea that the US as a superpower is really connected to scientific and technology advances...They’re happy to be hawkish toward China, but they really don’t understand the connection.” (45:19)
• Felix: “[Investment in research] has resulted in incredibly cheap solar panels, much cheaper than anyone thought they would be. And meanwhile, the Americans are like, well, we don't want your stinking solar panels. We're just going to drill, baby, drill.” (46:52)

Memorable Moments

• Emily and Elizabeth express dismay at the direction of U.S. policy, noting “it’s just so depressing” and “we really are self-owning our way into something not great.” (47:50 - 48:04)
• Felix plainly states, “Ford took that $19 billion charge and said, fuck it, we're not going to do EVs anymore,” blaming short-sighted policy for ceding the EV future to China. (48:24)

Numbers Round

[50:32 - 56:11]

• Emily: $3 — the supposed USDA cost of a complete basic meal (piece of chicken, piece of broccoli, corn tortilla, dairy), highlighting questionable assumptions in official food policy. (50:36)
• Felix: 22 — dollars for a “fake Negroni” (mocktail) at a NYC restaurant, illustrating the soaring price of non-alcoholic options. (52:48)
• Elizabeth: 7 — fire code violations tied to “Pure Gym” installations of new biometric access gates at Blink Fitness, sparking a discussion on gym amenities and culture. (53:58)

Notable Final Quotes

• Elizabeth: “I think the person who invented the revolving door was a sadist. So this feels worse to me.” (54:49)
• Felix (joking about gym towel usage): “You are why my gym costs so much money because you are using all the towels.” (56:05)

Overall Tone & Style

• Conversational, wry, and analytical, with dry humor and a moderate amount of exasperation toward U.S. political and financial dysfunction.
• The hosts bring in personal anecdotes, pop culture references, and solid reporting backgrounds.
• They maintain a pace both engaging for casual listeners and informative for policy and finance wonks.

Conclusion

This episode delivers sharp critiques and grounded analysis regarding the mainstreaming of gambling in entertainment, the political chaos surrounding Fed independence, and the slow-motion loss of U.S. scientific leadership to China. The crew tie disparate trends into a cohesive portrait of the shifting landscape in business, policy, and global competitiveness.

For deeper dives, refer to:

• Golden Globes’ Polymarket partnership: (02:18 - 14:43)
• DOJ and Jay Powell at the Fed: (26:52 - 36:55)
• China’s research university ascendancy: (40:40 - 50:22)