Episode 801 Scott Adams： David Mittelman on DNA Opportunities, Sour Don Lemon, Impeachment, China
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
154.17563
Summary
David Middleman is the founder and CEO of Authorum, a biometrics company that uses DNA sequencing and genomics to advance human identification, especially in the crime solving domain. In this episode, David talks about the new DNA-solved cases of the Golden State Killer and the San Francisco serial killer.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Hey everybody, sorry about that aborted start, I didn't have the options on that I needed.
00:00:21.840
We're going to be talking about impeachment and China and coronavirus and all that.
00:00:27.360
But before we do that, I'm going to bring on a special guest to talk about some updates in the world of DNA.
00:00:33.820
Some stuff that you will be interested in because it will matter to you either now or later.
00:00:40.060
But first, if you'd like to participate in the simultaneous sip, it doesn't take much.
00:00:44.740
It takes a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
00:00:52.760
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
00:01:10.520
Now let me check to see if my guest has found us.
00:01:16.860
I'm going to bring on my guest and introduce him.
00:01:28.240
He's the founder and CEO of Authorum, a biometrics company that uses DNA sequencing and genomics to advance human identification.
00:01:38.140
And especially in the crime-solving domain, which is some of the interesting parts.
00:01:47.300
Thanks for joining us to catch us up on some stuff.
00:01:51.220
One of the interesting things I wanted to ask you about is I believe Authorum has started a database where you can voluntarily have your DNA stored there for crime-solving purposes.
00:02:08.200
So what's the name of that and how do people participate if they want to?
00:02:16.780
And so you've probably heard, folks have heard from watching your show as well as from reading about the news about the Golden State Killer and a number of other folks that have been caught, victims identified, all because there's genealogical data that's been out on public databases to help triangulate and identify who unknown folks are.
00:02:39.800
And so what we've done with DNA solves is we've built a database that has nothing to do with medical research or genealogy research.
00:02:50.920
This is a database that is broadly available for folks that have been tested and want to contribute their DNA towards identifying the victim or solving a crime.
00:03:01.820
So they've been tested for some other purpose and it's in some other database?
00:03:08.760
So folks have tested with recreational testing companies such as ancestry.com or 23andMe.
00:03:15.640
When you test to learn something exciting about yourself, you can then take that profile, that information, and download it from your site.
00:03:29.440
Some people upload it to genealogical databases.
00:03:32.100
Some will upload it through tools that predict medical traits.
00:03:34.560
We've built a database that allows you to upload it so that in the event that you're genetically distantly related to someone that might be a perpetrator or a victim in a crime, we can use your data point as kind of like a stepping stone to identify who that person is.
00:03:50.800
So if I've got – let's say I'm afraid that there's somebody in my family, could be a distant cousin, but somebody in my family who might be a serial killer and I don't want to turn him in, I could just register my DNA and let the system do the rest, couldn't I?
00:04:09.040
Yes, and if you know that your sibling is a serial killer and you don't want them to get caught, then you would specifically not upload your data to the database.
00:04:18.380
Now, my data is in 23andMe, and I have not authorized anybody, at least not that I'm aware of, unless I did it accidentally.
00:04:26.980
I'm not aware of telling them to share it or download it.
00:04:30.560
How likely is it that my DNA would be available to law enforcement right now with no change?
00:04:39.840
There's been discussion about whether or not there's an ability to essentially, like they used to do in the 90s with the ISPs,
00:04:47.700
they've kind of used the court system to request data from these companies.
00:04:58.040
I think they've done a stellar job of protecting data.
00:05:00.520
And in fact, if you've been a 23andMe customer for a long period of time, you'll notice they used to have a third-party API where you could authorize people to look at your data.
00:05:10.460
So I would say 23andMe is a very secure place to keep your information.
00:05:14.780
The only way your data leaves 23andMe is if you go in there and specifically click a button that says, I would like my raw data.
00:05:22.080
And again, some people will do that for a variety of reasons, research, genealogy, whatever.
00:05:26.100
But 23andMe will not move your data on your behalf, even if you ask them to.
00:05:32.720
So what percentage of all Americans, let's say adults, what percentage of them have at this point at least one relative who's close enough that would help identify them,
00:05:45.100
who's in one of these databases that law enforcement can get at?
00:05:48.740
Are we closer to 10% or closer to 90%, meaning that you've got at least a cousin or something who's in the database?
00:05:59.280
So GEDmatch, which was a public database, before they moved to the opt-in model, I think there was about a million profiles in there.
00:06:07.640
And I think with that size of a database, there was pretty good odds that closer to 90% of people would have some connectivity to someone that's tested.
00:06:19.440
It may not be a first or second cousin, but at least a third cousin or closer.
00:06:24.020
And how close does a relative have to be before it becomes, let's say, useful for law enforcement?
00:06:33.140
I know every situation is going to be different, but you said a third cousin. Can you go even further?
00:06:39.500
You can. You can. And it obviously depends on luck and the size of your family and even to some extent, like where in the world you're from.
00:06:51.660
Obviously, Americans are enriched for these databases.
00:06:55.120
But, yeah, the answer to your question is that, you know, if you have a first, second, or third cousin, and a third cousin is pretty far out,
00:07:03.400
it's very easy to then use that to figure out the identity of an unknown DNA sample.
00:07:12.200
But as you move past fourth and fifth cousin, it becomes, you know, more difficult.
00:07:15.940
Now, I made a provocative claim without really knowing what I'm talking about the other day.
00:07:23.220
And I said that this technology is very close to making all serial crimes, at least the violent ones,
00:07:30.600
to make all serial crimes solvable by the end of the year.
00:07:35.920
In other words, if somebody is doing a serial sex crime or serial killer,
00:07:42.760
they're always going to leave DNA, wouldn't you say?
00:07:50.440
And the way technology has moved, you know, Offerum, unlike, you know,
00:07:55.660
so Offerum's a laboratory, so we actually work on not just the integration of data,
00:08:01.820
And we've been able to collect, you know, decent amounts of DNA from touch DNA.
00:08:08.440
It's that the limit of what you can leave and still generate useful information for
00:08:16.720
Like, if you're a serial, you know, rapist, you're probably going to leave DNA at some
00:08:23.560
How many people do you think have already figured out that they're adopted or at
00:08:29.840
least not related to their father without doing much work?
00:08:34.140
In other words, are the databases such that if you've done one of these tests and you download
00:08:41.140
your own data and upload it somewhere else, is there any way that you can just find out
00:08:49.960
And since that's a non-law enforcement application, you can do that at 23 Me or Ancestry.
00:08:58.380
You know, 23 Me's database is over 10 million people.
00:09:01.120
I think Ancestry just announced that they surpassed 16 million people.
00:09:04.360
So with that size of a database, it would be very straightforward to look for what they
00:09:13.200
So situations where your father is not your father.
00:09:16.780
People discover relatives they didn't know they had.
00:09:19.440
On the other side, and kind of the less cheery side, people discover that relationships that
00:09:25.640
So, and it's a personal decision if you go on that journey.
00:09:29.300
But there's a story, it seems like, all the time.
00:09:31.720
And that's actually how things were done prior to this application to law enforcement.
00:09:37.520
I mean, it's basically taking the adoption agencies and these kind of family mysteries
00:09:42.860
and applying it towards folks who are not your family, right, that could have been involved
00:09:49.180
And what about, I know you're not specifically working on the medical stuff, but you probably
00:09:55.080
I keep hearing about, there are some people who might have a natural immunity to, let's
00:10:03.820
Are you going to be able to identify people who have DNA that just won't get certain kinds
00:10:11.120
And therefore, would we be able to commercialize that and say, if these people can't get this
00:10:18.240
disease, we can figure out what it is and take some proteins or whatever the hell you
00:10:27.480
So I will tell you, you know, in my opinion, it's a really good idea to separate medicine
00:10:37.640
And so 23andMe, for example, doesn't participate in human identification, but they do medical
00:10:43.080
And what you're describing is kind of the direction 23andMe is headed, right?
00:10:47.980
Are there DNA components that would help predict if someone responds positively to a drug or
00:10:54.040
Are there new drugs that can be developed based on DNA markers that would make them more effective
00:11:00.520
than some folks that otherwise are benefiting from a drug?
00:11:08.740
So what you're saying, I think, is very likely and true.
00:11:12.020
But at Offerum, it's not about a science issue.
00:11:16.000
We simply do not use any information for medical work.
00:11:20.440
And if you look at the dhsolves.com website, you'll see that we're very clear the only
00:11:26.020
application, and this is consistent with the DOJ policy, the only application of human
00:11:30.760
identification, because we don't want to create any anxiety or make people think that we're
00:11:37.120
mixing multiple topics together, trick them into participating.
00:11:41.000
People should come to the site for no reason other than to solve a crime, not because they're
00:11:45.420
trying to, like, cure cancer or find a new drug.
00:11:49.700
I can tell my audience is itching for me to talk about the impeachment.
00:11:55.820
So just tell us again how they can find this database to voluntarily upload their data if
00:12:05.540
So the website is dnasolves.com, and anyone can participate.
00:12:11.000
And, you know, obviously, you know, whoever it is, we appreciate it.
00:12:16.140
And you'll probably be seeing in the news, you know, over the next year or two, just dozens
00:12:20.400
and dozens, not just perpetrators found that commit crimes, but I think a lot of victims
00:12:24.180
that otherwise would have remained anonymous being identified and being reanchored into society.
00:12:34.180
We're going to have you on in the future as we have.
00:12:36.920
I know there's going to be lots more DNA news, so it's great having somebody who's immersed
00:12:50.800
Let's talk about the news, some other stuff that's happening.
00:12:55.980
Bernie Sanders may have the opportunity to completely win the nomination by using a poison pill.
00:13:06.540
Now, a poison pill is a term from mergers and acquisitions of companies.
00:13:13.600
And what it means is if you don't want your company to get purchased, you can pass some
00:13:18.280
internal rules that are called a poison pill, meaning that if somebody tries to buy your company,
00:13:24.020
they will wish they hadn't because the purchase will trigger something.
00:13:28.680
For example, if you didn't want your company to be bought by a larger company, but you were
00:13:34.260
a public company, so there's nothing you could do to stop it because they could just buy your
00:13:38.080
stock and own you, you could say, I'll pass a rule that says all the employees get a 500%
00:13:45.240
bonus if we get purchased, which would make you unpurchaseable because the moment you are
00:13:51.840
purchased, all the money in the company would be given to the employees and the purchaser would be
00:13:59.580
There's something you do that makes you unbuyable.
00:14:03.340
Bernie Sanders could do a version of this, just by analogy here, he could do a version of this if
00:14:11.240
his supporters decided to claim that if Bernie doesn't get the nomination, they'll vote for Trump.
00:14:18.760
In other words, if you can get enough Bernie Sanders people to say either signing up or
00:14:25.680
they sign a petition or just say it on social media, if they say, look, if Bernie gets screwed
00:14:32.280
out of the nomination again, two years in a row or two cycles in a row, that they're just
00:14:41.880
Now, there are a lot of people who probably believe that, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch.
00:14:49.180
It would make it impossible for any of the other Democrats to get elected in the general
00:14:56.500
So Biden's argument that he's the only one who could beat Trump just disappears.
00:15:01.620
Because the moment anybody but Bernie gets elected, the protest vote kicks in.
00:15:08.120
It's a poison pill, and it makes it impossible for the actual nominee to get elected.
00:15:12.780
Now, you could say to yourself, well, every politician has that option, right?
00:15:23.760
There is something special about Bernie's supporters.
00:15:27.620
Bernie's supporters are just sort of, I would say, a mirror version of Trump supporters in
00:15:37.780
I mean, they favor different policies, obviously.
00:15:43.900
Trump supporters wanted somebody to burn down the system.
00:15:49.140
Bernie supporters want somebody to burn down the system.
00:15:52.160
So if they don't get somebody to burn down the system, they're not going to be terribly
00:15:56.460
concerned about who it is, because it's just going to be more of what we already had.
00:16:01.080
So I think Bernie supporters could actually form a poison pill and make it impossible for
00:16:05.880
anybody else to win the nomination and have a fair chance at winning in the general.
00:16:16.760
I've been watching, of course, the president's attorneys argue against impeachment, and I've
00:16:28.940
Pam Bondi made a really good argument that Burisma is sketchy and that the Biden's association
00:16:39.400
That is key, because if you accept that Burisma was worth looking into, then that's the end
00:16:48.160
of the story, because that's what the president asked for.
00:16:55.420
There's nothing else to be said as long as Burisma was worth looking into.
00:17:02.600
Now, there's one part of her case which I don't know why all conservatives keep saying
00:17:08.240
this, because it's just inaccurate as far as I can tell, and that is that there's something
00:17:16.160
important about the fact that Biden asked for the prosecutor in Ukraine to be fired when
00:17:22.780
that prosecutor either had an open case or some kind of paperwork involved about looking
00:17:33.380
Now, the transporters and lawyers are saying, well, that just shows that Joe Biden pressured
00:17:44.760
But in fact, it's a ridiculous argument, because Biden was doing what was national policy.
00:17:51.000
It was national policy that that guy was rotten, that he wasn't really going after Burisma.
00:18:00.260
So I think including that part of the argument in why the Burisma Biden thing is all sketchy,
00:18:08.940
I think that just really weakened the argument, because it's a part of the argument that is
00:18:16.860
So if you make an argument with a fact that is just so easily debunked, that's just not
00:18:26.460
So I thought Pam Bondi made a good argument that Burisma is dirty and worth looking into,
00:18:31.680
but that one fact about the prosecutor, that's just fake news.
00:18:37.020
So you throw that in there, it weakens your case.
00:18:57.160
If you think that Alan Dershowitz made a good presentation, it doesn't matter what anybody
00:19:03.380
else says, it doesn't, because he made a very convincing argument, very convincing, that
00:19:12.240
the articles of impeachment are not impeachable offenses.
00:19:16.620
And the argument goes to what is high crimes and misdemeanors.
00:19:22.360
And Dershowitz walked through the entire history of it, what the various founders who were important
00:19:27.000
to it, what they said, what people misinterpret about it because they've conflated things.
00:19:34.000
So he gives you a real clean history of how we got here.
00:19:41.820
You know, obviously, people will just stick to their sides because they want to.
00:19:45.840
But if you were even a little bit open-minded and you heard his presentation, you would say
00:19:50.540
to yourself, oh, yeah, they really did mean something like a crime or something that's
00:19:56.920
so like a crime, even if it's technically not a crime, it's still a crime.
00:20:03.280
And the example he used was, what if the president did something terrible, such as taking a bribe
00:20:11.120
Well, and it was in some country where it wasn't illegal or it couldn't be prosecuted.
00:20:17.800
Well, yes, because that crime is exactly a crime in our country.
00:20:21.360
And even though there's a technical reason why he couldn't be prosecuted, it's no doubt
00:20:32.620
But as Dershowitz points out, there is no law against abuse of power, nor, and this is
00:20:43.060
Not only is there not a law against abuse of power, but the framers were very clear, and
00:20:49.520
Dershowitz walks you through their thinking, about how you can't have a vague standard.
00:20:54.360
Because if you have a vague standard, like what is abuse of power?
00:21:01.000
As long as you can have that kind of vague standard, then it makes the presidency a puppet
00:21:12.660
So Congress would actually own the presidency if they could get rid of a president just by
00:21:18.100
claiming something they did was an abuse of power, because apparently every president
00:21:26.060
So you can never have a constitutional rule about removing a president that is so subject
00:21:32.540
to interpretation, you can't even tell if the standard has been met.
00:21:37.980
In fact, there's nothing more predictive about all this legal stuff than if you see that there's
00:21:43.560
something where legal experts can't even agree if any kind of a crime has happened.
00:21:48.500
Anytime you're in that situation, you're going to go free.
00:21:53.600
It doesn't matter if you're president and somebody's trying to impeach you.
00:21:57.040
It doesn't matter if you get picked up on the street for some alleged crime.
00:22:00.860
If lawyers look at the activity and they're not arguing about the facts, they're looking
00:22:05.920
at the same facts, and some of them say, yeah, this is a crime, but others, just as experienced
00:22:11.660
and unbiased, say, I don't know, I don't see it, you're almost certainly going to go free.
00:22:17.480
So whenever you see that much ambiguity about whether it even is a crime, that's good for
00:22:27.120
Now, in our world in which people aren't really going to change their minds, pretty much everybody
00:22:34.180
knows how they want to vote, but you've got a handful of senators who are in these swing
00:22:43.760
In other words, the Republicans probably would prefer to vote with the other Republicans because
00:22:50.160
it's less trouble, but they also want to win re-election.
00:22:53.260
So they need a reason to vote for the Republicans that's clean, one they can explain to their base
00:22:59.640
and say, look, here's my reason, let's call it a fake because.
00:23:05.780
Sometimes people have already decided, but they need to have a reason to give to other
00:23:13.140
And the reasons that don't sound good are all the things that the other lawyers were
00:23:25.120
All of that stuff, all of that stuff will get you not re-elected.
00:23:30.380
If you're arguing in the weeds, there are too many weeds.
00:23:37.340
You just can't win if you're at that lower level.
00:23:40.380
Dershowitz just provided the senators that are in that danger zone.
00:23:45.600
If they vote one way, they might lose their job, but if they vote the other way, they might
00:23:49.780
That very few senators just got a simple, clean, fake because.
00:23:57.880
So should they decide to vote with the other Republicans, here's what they say.
00:24:04.240
Alan Dershowitz's presentation on whether or not these were constitutional charges was
00:24:10.440
so strong that we could ignore the specifics because it doesn't pass the first test of being
00:24:17.460
something worthy that rises to the level of an impeachable offense no matter what the
00:24:24.040
So we don't need to have an opinion about whether it was a good idea for the president
00:24:32.640
We don't have to have an opinion about whether it was quid pro quo or not.
00:24:36.700
We don't have to have an opinion about any of that because you can stop with Dershowitz's
00:24:44.640
Tell your base, you know, I've got two responsibilities.
00:24:48.020
One is, of course, to the people, but another is to the Constitution.
00:24:52.800
And I'm not going to degrade the Constitution by turning something that's kind of specific
00:24:58.080
into something that's kind of vague by precedent because then we'll never have another president
00:25:03.300
who completes a term if the Congress is the other party.
00:25:08.500
So I think Dershowitz did what he needed to do, which is he gave the people on the fence
00:25:23.620
Rush Limbaugh, again, was talking about my tweet about Bolton.
00:25:32.520
Somebody unironically called it a bolt of lightning.
00:25:36.840
They should have called it a Bolton of lightning, but they missed that opportunity.
00:25:42.960
And what you see when, and the reason I'm mentioning that Rush Limbaugh was talking about
00:25:50.120
my tweet, it's the second time this week on the same topic of impeachment, a different
00:25:55.280
And what I tweeted was that the Bolton manuscript proves that the president should not be impeached
00:26:03.920
because Bolton's story is that the president was worried about Ukraine and corruption.
00:26:14.020
So once you've established that the president genuinely cared about corruption and Ukraine
00:26:19.780
and other countries not paying their share and other things, that's all you need to demonstrate.
00:26:24.720
As long as there's a national interest, it doesn't matter if it's also good for the president,
00:26:35.420
And every time I see an example of this, I'm going to call it out until you see the pattern.
00:26:39.980
We are no longer a constitutional republic the way we always had been through history.
00:26:45.860
Because of the Internet, there are voices, in this case it was mine, where I simply had an idea
00:26:56.660
So because my idea was good, a lot of people saw it, and then apparently they were tweeting at
00:27:02.360
or sending him to Rush Limbaugh and saying, you should read this on the air, and then he did.
00:27:07.860
So Rush Limbaugh has a far bigger audience than I do.
00:27:13.940
And then basically everybody's seeing it at that point.
00:27:16.800
And I think that we've reached something like an idea meritocracy, meaning that if you have
00:27:24.200
a good idea, it's going to get to the right place.
00:27:28.160
Because we've developed somewhat accidentally, and I think Jack Dorsey gets the win on this
00:27:37.840
Twitter allows a good idea to find supporters and then grow from that small good idea into
00:27:45.900
something that actually forces the politicians to move in that direction, because the public's
00:27:55.180
We have an idea meritocracy instead of a constitutional republic, and we just sort of drifted into it.
00:28:05.300
I was looking at the CNN pundits who were trying to find something wrong with the president's
00:28:14.820
And so here was a funny one from Jen Psaki, writing for CNN.
00:28:20.220
And she said that President Trump's defense team failed at their most important job.
00:28:25.740
And I thought, uh-oh, his defense failed at their most important job?
00:28:31.260
You mean the president's going to be impeached?
00:28:33.640
You mean they failed to keep him from being impeached?
00:28:38.360
She says they failed at their most important job, which was making a clear and compelling
00:28:43.020
argument that there was no need to hear from Bolton.
00:28:47.880
Well, did he hear anything I said about Dershowitz?
00:28:51.320
I would say that they absolutely hammered the thing they needed to do.
00:29:00.880
The thing they needed to do was to give the senators on the fence a clean, easy way to
00:29:07.220
vote for the president instead of against them, and they did that.
00:29:15.360
Not if you accept the Dershowitz argument, and it's so strong that you should.
00:29:22.240
If you accept the Dershowitz argument, and he said directly more than once, he said it
00:29:27.640
at the beginning and he said it at the end, no matter whether the new Bolton information
00:29:33.760
is correct or not correct, it has no bearing on the decision because none of it's impeachable.
00:29:42.220
The true version or the fake version, they're both not impeachable.
00:29:47.960
So Jen Psaki saying that they missed their most important job, and that's just not true.
00:30:03.580
Here's a question for you, just sort of a general way to predict what's going to happen.
00:30:07.900
And I've seen a few people ask this question on social media.
00:30:10.960
How many people would switch from Trump, let's say they voted or supported Trump in the past,
00:30:17.980
and vote for a Democrat, versus how many Democrats are likely to, for the first time, switch
00:30:28.140
It reminds me a little bit of those old Apple computer and IBM commercials.
00:30:33.060
And somewhere along the line, when IBM was still making personal computers and they were
00:30:37.740
the main competition for Apple, somewhere along the line, someone at Apple cleverly realized
00:30:44.100
that when people move from the IBM PC over to Apple, they almost never move back.
00:30:51.860
But very few people will move from Apple to IBM.
00:30:56.560
So it's basically, it was always a one-way direction.
00:30:58.800
And sure enough, that predicted where we are today.
00:31:02.760
Where I live in Silicon Valley, you don't even see a Windows computer.
00:31:09.460
If you see a laptop, at least within the Silicon Valley, San Francisco, Bay Area, if you see
00:31:16.520
somebody with a laptop and they happen to be in the technical world, it's an Apple.
00:31:24.740
So Apple won, because they did have that quality where when people changed their minds, they
00:31:31.800
I think that's starting to develop with Trump versus at least the generic Democrats.
00:31:39.740
Anecdotally, I'm hearing, and this is just anecdotal.
00:31:42.980
Anecdotally, I'm hearing people who are going to vote for Trump for the first time.
00:31:47.520
But I'm not hearing people saying, Trump disappointed me, I'm going to go vote Democrat.
00:31:57.440
I'm just saying that it's starting to shape up like it's a one-way path.
00:32:11.400
So apparently Tibet is going to close their border with China,
00:32:15.480
and Hong Kong is talking about closing traffic coming in and out of Hong Kong.
00:32:22.280
And I think even since yesterday, the number of people infected has maybe doubled,
00:32:32.500
And so here's the question, which I'll just ask every day.
00:32:37.120
Why does our government not tell us why they've decided to not close all of our traffic coming in from China?
00:32:49.860
so there are more airports being checked from more destinations from China.
00:32:55.200
I'm glad that they're checking people coming in.
00:32:57.540
But we do know the checks don't work, meaning that unless somebody's already feverish,
00:33:04.700
and I think that's the main symptom, maybe cough, I'm not sure.
00:33:08.080
But if they don't have symptoms yet, you can't tell.
00:33:11.260
And apparently there might be tens of thousands of people with no symptoms.
00:33:15.480
So we know our government has implemented a set of processes that can't work completely.
00:33:38.840
Can you tell me who is the face in our government who's in charge of deciding if the airports are open or closed?
00:33:51.660
Do you remember seeing anybody who was identified as being in charge of that decision?
00:33:59.500
Do we let, you know, what do we do with China traffic?
00:34:04.680
Because, you know, on some level, of course, it's always the president.
00:34:07.540
But isn't there a cabinet-level person, somebody?
00:34:13.540
Is there not a person we should see on the news every single day explaining to us why what we're doing is better than closing the airports?
00:34:26.620
The fact that you haven't seen that person tells me the government is failing you.
00:34:34.100
If the government could give you a person, this is a person responsible.
00:34:39.460
Here's why we have not yet closed the airports.
00:34:45.880
Even if you don't agree with the reason, if you don't have that person with a face, with a job, whose job it is, you know, maybe with the president's approval, of course.
00:34:55.380
But short of that, you haven't seen it, have you?
00:35:05.700
Why are they not in every interview, every 10 minutes on TV all the time?
00:35:12.200
That missing part should make you distrust your government's motives.
00:35:17.020
Because if everything was on the up and up, you would know who that person is, and they would be interviewed every day.
00:35:27.760
So there's something about this process that isn't working.
00:35:33.280
If this is somehow a political decision, and it might be, right?
00:35:43.800
I hope it's a health and welfare and security decision.
00:35:53.040
No president ever got, ever lost his job or her job by being too cautious about a pandemic.
00:36:05.260
Nobody ever lost their job by being too cautious about a pandemic.
00:36:11.920
But if President Trump is not cautious enough, you can definitely lose your job for that.
00:36:20.900
Indeed, if we don't close our airports, and this thing gets into our country and starts killing people by the hundreds or thousands,
00:36:29.300
how could you possibly support Trump for re-election?
00:36:35.340
So he has a political risk of losing the election, but there's nothing he could do in terms of being overly cautious that could cost him even one vote.
00:36:45.740
There's not one person who would vote against him if he went too tight and was too cautious.
00:36:51.400
But I'm telling you, I'm getting close to voting against him just for not talking about it enough.
00:36:56.980
So I'm close to the edge where this issue, should it grow and more people in the United States get it and the deaths are coming in,
00:37:07.180
if we see that, how do you support the president?
00:37:19.380
I'm seeing some people who are bad at economics argue that we shouldn't yet close travel from traffic because of the economic cost.
00:37:33.580
Would there be a, let's say, a formidable or a cost that's just so high that we can't stand it if we close travel for, let's say, 30 days?
00:37:45.900
Because 30 days is a long time in the life of one of these pandemics.
00:37:50.720
Maybe if you could stop travel for 30 days, just to pick a number, we can get a good foothold.
00:38:01.220
Now, remember, we're not talking about stopping trade.
00:38:08.100
How much trade would be lost because for one month, human beings could only talk to each other on the phone or video chats or e-mail or whatever.
00:38:21.220
How many deals would be lost simply because people had to wait a month to fly?
00:38:29.820
How much would the travel industry lose if the people who wanted to fly, you know, between China and the United States this month, suppose they had to wait till next month?
00:38:41.200
Well, first of all, most of those people who waited a month still have to go.
00:38:46.160
So most of the people who didn't go this month, let's say, hypothetically, the travel was shut down between China and the U.S.,
00:38:53.060
the people who didn't go still have to go if they were visiting family.
00:39:01.020
So it might not even have that much of an impact on travel except that one month would be low,
00:39:06.980
but you'd probably have the best month you ever had the month after.
00:39:10.440
It wouldn't be enough to compensate, but probably 80% of it would just come back the next month.
00:39:18.320
And then other people were making this terrible economic comparison.
00:39:22.460
This is why I wrote Loser Think, my book that you should read.
00:39:26.080
People were saying that so few people have died from this coronavirus compared to, let's say, a regular flu,
00:39:35.920
which actually can kill thousands of people every year, or let's say car crashes.
00:39:41.500
So somebody said, well, if you're going to be that cautious, shouldn't you stop people from driving cars?
00:39:46.980
To which I say, analogies do not win arguments.
00:39:53.660
It is a ridiculous comparison of a mature risk that is basically woven into the fabric of our entire economy
00:40:04.760
versus a risk that's just starting, and we don't know how big it could get.
00:40:09.900
You can't compare those things, because on day one of the AIDS epidemic,
00:40:21.460
On day one, the first day that anybody ever found an AIDS virus,
00:40:29.680
the first day that somebody got AIDS and died, a human being,
00:40:32.620
there were more deaths from people stepping on rakes that year, right?
00:40:41.560
because look, one person died versus all these people drowned in swimming pools
00:40:46.280
and car accidents and drank themselves to death,
00:41:00.940
and make your decision based on risk management.
00:41:06.200
So a lot of people were really bad at comparing things
00:41:11.540
and it's a good thing I'm here to fix that for you.
00:41:15.380
Apparently, Boris Johnson over in Great Britain
00:41:18.220
has decided they're going to use China's Huawei company
00:41:32.340
we believe, at least the United States believes,
00:41:35.140
they use this company to spy on anything that crosses the network.
00:41:42.540
the utility to snoop on all of the Great Britain traffic.
00:41:51.660
To the point where people are suggesting online
00:42:03.480
Anything that you do with Great Britain from now on
00:42:06.100
presumably would be known by China or could be.
00:42:18.540
not least because it will infuriate President Trump.
00:42:29.020
our prime minister will be a lapdog to the White House.
00:42:37.040
Isn't it better to be a lapdog to the United States,
00:42:51.880
here's another economic lesson for you in small.
00:42:58.600
if there were some way to bet on climate change?