Slate Money – "Speaking of Terrifying…" (Jan 25, 2020)

Host: Felix Salmon
Guests: Anna Szymanski, Emily Peck

Overview

This episode of Slate Money, titled “Speaking of Terrifying...”, offers a round-up of recent stories in business and finance that tap into contemporary anxieties—ranging from the early outbreak of the coronavirus, the ethical and civil liberty dilemmas of facial recognition company Clearview, to the financial and emotional response to the Australian bushfires. The tone is sharp, skeptical, and laced with dry humor as the panel unpacks the intersection of panic, technology, and collective action.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Coronavirus Panic and Economic Ripple Effects

[00:48-12:25]

• Cable News Cycle and Panic: The hosts discuss how periodic outbreaks (like anthrax, Ebola, SARS, and now coronavirus) generate cable news-driven “nationwide panic,” which often outpaces real risk and is forgotten after a few weeks.

  • “And there's this weird sort of nationwide panic, which may or may not be based in reality. And then a few weeks later, everyone's kind of forgotten about it.” – Felix [01:44]

• Economic Impact vs. Real Risk: Anna points out that historic outbreaks caused substantial economic hits due to panic, not just the disease, referencing SARS taking “a percent off China’s GDP,” less because of mortality, more because of travel and commerce disruptions.

• Timing with Lunar New Year: Felix highlights how the timing of coronavirus with the Lunar New Year, China’s biggest travel and gift-giving holiday, “is going to magnify the effects of the virus compared to if it had happened any other week of the year.” [05:01]

• Public Health Funding & Pharma Incentives: Emily explores how the U.S. underfunds pandemic research and how pharma under-invests in diseases that are unlikely to yield blockbuster drugs.

  • “Big pharma is not that interested in curing these things. So they don't devote that much money relative to other problems like say like cancer…” [06:40]

• Disease Preparedness in China: Anna notes misaligned funding in China between research and basic public health, which can create breeding grounds for outbreaks.

• System Limits—Quarantine Feasibility: The hosts contrast China’s ability to quarantine cities with the U.S., referencing political structures and past failures in timely outbreak acknowledgment by local authorities.

• Media’s Role in Panic: Emily and the others joke about media tropes fueling apocalyptic thinking—"Every zombie movie starts off with like, shot of like the news, the TV news, and there's like a map and there's little red dots on the map about the virus that's coming.” [10:12]

• Environmental & Social Factors: Anna connects increased outbreaks to “more people, more travel, higher animal-human contact, and climate change making things worse.”

2. Clearview and the Dystopian Rise of Face Recognition

[12:25-23:44]

• Clearview AI Exposé: Felix introduces Clearview, which “has amassed a huge database of people’s faces and is peddling it to law enforcement agencies everywhere around the country.” [13:32]

  • Clearview’s founder is described as “sketchy,” with ties to alt-right figures.

• Tech Progress and Irreversibility:

  • “It’s toothpaste that cannot be put back in the tube… The technical challenge of being able to recognize whose face is whose is a solved problem—this is now mathematically not a difficult thing to do.” – Felix [15:09]

• Law Enforcement Use: Clearview only succeeded once it started targeting police departments. The hosts voice concern over the regulatory and civil rights challenges this poses.

  • “You could try and pass a law saying no one use face recognition, but that’s not gonna stop, like, the NSA from using face recognition. They’re just gonna do whatever they can do anyway.” – Felix [17:00]

• Accuracy and Risks: The database is “stunningly accurate,” but panelists highlight fears about privacy and the potential for “Tom Cruise movie” scenarios, where ads and denied services are triggered by facial data.

• Corporate vs. Rogue Startups:

  • Felix points out, “It’s much easier… to talk to Google and stay on top of what they’re doing… If it’s sketchy companies like Clearview, that’s even worse.” [20:03]

• Regulatory Complexity: Anna suggests it’s easier to regulate a few big tech firms, but breaking them up could disperse power and make regulation harder, creating a dilemma for policymakers.

• Potential for Corporate Crackdown: Ultimately, Felix expects platforms like Facebook to block Clearview for violating terms of service, potentially causing Clearview to implode, though illicit facial databases likely persist elsewhere.

3. Charity and the Australian Bushfires – Good Intentions, Complex Outcomes

[23:44-32:22]

• Bushfire Donations – Philanthropy or Policy Gap? Felix explores the oddity of donating en masse to Australia’s volunteer firefighters—essentially a government agency—questioning if public giving might let government off the funding hook.

  • “You have this very interesting phenomenon of people basically donating money to the Australian government, which is not what you would consider to be a cash constrained cause.” [24:37]

• Red Cross: Efficiency and Controversy:

  • Wide skepticism toward the Red Cross, with Felix critical of the American branch but affording the Australian version more benefit of the doubt.

• Should Charities Save for the Future? The team discusses whether it’s “okay” for the Red Cross to save part of disaster donations for future crises.

  • “You should want them to [save]... The most important time for an agency like the Red Cross to be able to respond to a disaster is immediately and not after the money comes in.” – Felix [28:11]

• Earmarking and Donor Emotions: Past incidents (e.g., 9/11 donations) created pressure to spend money directly on named disasters, even when inefficient. The group argues donor trust, not earmarks, should guide giving.

• Emotional Parallels to Pandemic Panic: Emily draws a tie between panic-driven giving and fear-based behaviors around coronavirus—each derived from “reacting to things that are sort of just absolutely out of your control…” [31:18]

• Climate Change and Individual Action:

  • “The answer isn’t give money to charities. The answer is…pay more taxes, vote, get the government involved because that’s who can really take collective action.” – Emily [32:04]

4. Numbers Round

[32:45–38:55]
Lightning round with quirky business numbers and discussion.

• Goldman Sachs’ Diversity Mandate:

  • Emily’s number: “One” — Goldman won’t take companies public without at least one non-white, non-male board member.
  • “They’ll take any token black person. They put sexual orientation as one too...” – Emily [34:13]
  • Felix: “When Goldman Sachs went public, they had seven board members, four of them were named John, and none were a woman.” [34:25]

• Mexico’s Unsellable Presidential Plane:

  • Anna’s number: “$130 million” — the price of Mexico’s presidential plane, which no one wants, inspiring viral short stories starting, “And when he woke up, he discovered he had won the presidential plane.” [36:14]

• Chick-fil-A’s Ultra-Low Franchise Acceptance:

  • Felix’s number: “0.513%” — The acceptance rate for Chick-fil-A franchisees (60,000 apply yearly, only 80 accepted) is lower than getting into Stanford.
  • Highlights Chick-fil-A’s unique franchise model and thin fast-food profit margins.
  • “Average revenue per store… $4.2 million, which is way higher than KFC or McDonald's…” [38:21]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Pandemic News Coverage:

  • “Every zombie movie starts off with like, shot of like the news, the TV news, and there's like a map and there's little red dots on the map about the virus that's coming.” – Emily [10:12]

• On Donating During Bushfires:

  • "People basically donating money to the Australian government, which is not what you would consider to be a cash-constrained cause.” – Felix [24:37]

• On Facial Recognition's Inescapability:

  • "It’s toothpaste that cannot be put back in the tube… The technical challenge of being able to recognize whose face is whose is a solved problem.” – Felix [15:09]

• On Individual vs. Collective Action:

  • “The answer isn’t give money to charities. The answer is…pay more taxes, vote, get the government involved because that’s who can really take collective action.” – Emily [32:04]

• On Corporate Diversity Initiatives:

  • “When it’s one, you’re the token whatever.” – Emily [33:56]

• On the Absurdity of the Unsold Presidential Jet:

  • “And when he woke up, he discovered he had won the presidential plane.” – Anna [36:14]

Tone & Style

The episode is conversational, irreverent, and informed by a blend of skepticism and dry wit. The hosts challenge surface-level panic, question the system behind the headlines, and are frank about industry and policy shortcomings. Jokes and pop culture references (Tom Cruise, zombie movies) add levity to what could otherwise be a bleak survey of dangers, disasters, and dystopias.

Timestamps at a Glance

• [00:48] – Coronavirus panic and media cycles
• [05:01] – Lunar New Year and economic consequences
• [06:40] – Pandemic preparedness & pharma funding
• [10:12] – Zombie apocalypse/Media tropes
• [12:25] – Clearview AI discussion begins
• [20:03] – Google and facial recognition moratorium
• [23:44] – Bushfire philanthropy & Red Cross debate begins
• [28:11] – Why charities must save for future disasters
• [31:18] – Parallels between panic-giving & pandemic panic
• [32:45] – Numbers round: Goldman, Mexican jet, Chick-fil-A

This summary covers all major themes and memorable moments for listeners seeking a comprehensive overview of this Slate Money episode.