Glen Pearson Journeys Podcast
Glen Pearson has spent his entire adult life in pursuit of public service, democracy, and the primacy of citizenship. But those words can sound abstract until you see what they really mean over the course of a human life. They mean showing up when others turn away. They mean believing that communities are not held together by systems alone, but by moral commitments — by ordinary people who decide, day after day, that the lives around them matter.
Over decades of work in politics, humanitarian service, community leadership, and writing, Pearson has come to understand something that modern society often forgets: a healthy democracy is not primarily built in legislatures, media studios, corporate towers, or in algorithms. It is built in the quiet habits of citizenship. It is built whenever people choose responsibility over cynicism, contribution over withdrawal, and neighbourliness over isolation.
For much of his life, he has tried to give language to those truths. Through more than seventy books, countless articles, podcasts, and his long-standing column in the London Free Press, Glen has chronicled not merely political events, but the deeper moral and social currents moving beneath them. His work consistently returns to the same central question: how do human beings remain connected to one another in an age that so often pulls them apart?
That question has become especially urgent in our time. We live amid extraordinary technological advancement and unprecedented material convenience, yet many people move through life carrying a quiet loneliness. Institutions that once formed identity and belonging have weakened. Public life has grown harsher, more performative, more tribal. Too often citizenship itself has been reduced to outrage, branding, or consumption, as though democracy were simply a marketplace of grievances rather than a shared moral project.
Pearson’s life and writing offer another vision.
He argues that meaning is not found in endless self-preoccupation, but in service. That purpose emerges when people dedicate themselves to something larger than personal advancement. That communities flourish when citizens stop asking only what they are owed and begin asking what they are called to give.
Again and again, his work points toward the small but transformative acts that renew societies: feeding neighbours, mentoring children, protecting institutions, listening across differences, creating spaces where dignity can survive. He believes the future will not ultimately be saved by ideology or spectacle, but by the patient rebuilding of trust between people who learn once more how to see one another as fellow travellers rather than enemies. Thus the title of this site – Journeys.
At the heart of Pearson’s message is a profound faith in human possibility. Not a naïve optimism that denies suffering or division, but a deeper conviction that people are capable of moral courage when summoned toward a worthy purpose. He reminds us that citizenship is not merely a legal status. It is a moral vocation. Democracy survives only when enough people choose to carry one another through difficult times.
In an age searching desperately for meaning, Glen Pearson invites us back to the enduring truths that make both lives and nations worth building: service, decency, sacrifice, community, and love.
Glen Pearson Journeys Podcast
Unravelling - Chapter 3
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
How social security began in Canada.
I'm Brian Pearson from The Journey to Podcast. Join me as we do a deep dive into my new book, The Unraveling, about how Canada lost its way. I hope you enjoy these episodes.
SPEAKER_02Picture this. It is a gray, unassuming morning in, well, March 1943.
SPEAKER_00Right, in Ottawa.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, in Ottawa. So you're a member of Parliament, you walk into your office, sit down at your desk, and there is this 230-page government document just waiting for you.
SPEAKER_00And it has l literally the driest title imaginable.
SPEAKER_02Oh, relentlessly boring. It was called The Report on Social Security for Canada. And it looks so mundane that you, and frankly, most of your colleagues just ignore it for days.
SPEAKER_00Which is wild in hindsight.
SPEAKER_02It is. Because here's the remarkable part. That slim little volume, written by a 37-year-old McGill social scientist named Leonard Marsh, is actually a massive, radical $900 million blueprint.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, it is basically the ultimate Trojan horse of bureaucratic paperwork.
SPEAKER_02Exactly. It's the literal foundation for the modern Canadian welfare state. So the mission for our deep dive today is to explore exactly how this single report tried to build this structural floor under a society.
SPEAKER_00Right.
SPEAKER_02And speaking directly to you listening right now, even if you aren't Canadian, even if you've never set foot in Ottawa, this deep dive is fundamentally about how any society decides to manage human vulnerability.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, it's universal.
SPEAKER_02It's about that core question, right? Like how much of the risk of being alive should fall entirely on your shoulders as an individual and how much should be shared by the collective community.
SPEAKER_00Exactly.
SPEAKER_02Okay, let's unpack this. Because to really understand what Leonard Marsh was trying to build, we first have to look closely at the world he was trying to fix.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell And it was rough. I mean, the text paints a pretty bleak picture of pre-welfare state Canada. Aaron Powell Yeah.
SPEAKER_02They use this really evocative phrase for the era. They call it a geography of insecurity.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Which is such a striking way to put it. Canada in the 1930s and early 40s was a place of tightly managed vulnerability. Right. The underlying reality was that no matter how virtuous you were, or you know, how hard you worked, a single event could instantly plunge your family into total destitution.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Just total ruin. I want to dig into the specifics here because the historical examples the text provides really highlight some. The text notes it provided a maximum of $20 a month for people over 70, and it was aggressively means tested.
SPEAKER_00Very aggressive.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Plus, it relied heavily on federal provincial cost sharing. And I just have to assume the provinces weren't exactly jumping at the chance to fund this out of their own depleted coffers, right?
SPEAKER_00Oh, they absolutely were not. Several provinces just flatly refused to participate for years, citing fiscal constraints. And the text points out the grim reality this created. You have this generation that literally built the country, clearing the forests, laying the railroads, and they often reached the end of their working lives with zero accumulated wealth.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell So what did they do?
SPEAKER_00Well, they ended up relying entirely on their struggling adult children, or even worse, they were forced into municipal poorhouses.
SPEAKER_02Oh man.
SPEAKER_00And the author explicitly notes that these institutions were designed to be punitive and undignified, like they acted as a deliberate deterrent to anyone seeking public aid.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell That is just bleak. And illness was just as catastrophic, wasn't it? We're talking about a pre-Medicare landscape where a medical emergency wasn't just physical trauma, it was a financial death sentence.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell You paid the surgeon, the hospital room rate, the medication, everything out of pocket. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02Right. The text describes working-class families intentionally delaying critical treatments until conditions were so advanced they were almost impossible to treat just because they didn't have the upfront capital. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, or families were pulling patients out of hospital beds before they were fully healed.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Just to avoid being billed for another day's room rate.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. The source even includes accounts of doctors regularly seeing patients forced into this agonizing choice between buying household groceries and buying necessary medicine.
SPEAKER_02I mean, that's just an impossible choice. And if you lost your job in this era, you were in a very similar free fall.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Yeah. Unemployment was just terrifying. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02By 1940, Canada had introduced an unemployment insurance system, but it was incredibly narrow. It excluded agricultural workers, domestic servants, the self-employed. They got nothing.
SPEAKER_00Trevor Burrus And even if you miraculously qualified, it only replaced 50% of your earnings. And that was for a strictly limited time.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell And if those benefits ran out?
SPEAKER_00You fell back onto this patchwork of municipal relief. And the text explicitly states this relief was designed merely to, quote, prevent starvation.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Prevent starvation, not live.
SPEAKER_00Trevor Burrus Right. It wasn't about maintaining a standard of living at all. It was literally just about keeping a pulse.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Ross Powell It really makes me think of walking a highwire without a net. You could be the absolute best, most skilled acrobat in the world. You do everything perfectly.
SPEAKER_01Yeah.
SPEAKER_02But one unpredictable gust of wind, like a sudden illness or a layoff at the factory, and you experience a catastrophic fall, there's simply nothing there to catch you.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell That's a really good analogy. That's exactly what the source is conveying.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell But this raises a glaring question for me. If things were this dire, if people are literally choosing between food and medicine, why does the text describe the immediate political reaction to Marsh's report as so hesitant?
SPEAKER_00Well, that hesitation leads us directly into the clash between Marsh's moral vision and the raw political reality of the 1940s. Right. When Marsh submitted this report, he didn't just offer abstract, you know, utopian ideas. He costed his entire universal framework out to three decimal places.
SPEAKER_02Three decimal places. He did the math.
SPEAKER_00He really did. He proposed this interlocking system covering unemployment, illness, old age, child rearing, and the total price tag he attached to it was approximately $900 million annually.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Marsh wanted $900 million. That was roughly 40% of the pre-war federal budget.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Yeah, it was astronomical.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell I just can't imagine Prime Minister Mackenzie King just nodded and signed the check. King isn't historically known as some radical visionary, you know. He's known as a supreme pragmatist. Exactly. So how does the text explain his willingness to even entertain a systemic overhaul of that magnitude?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell According to the text, it was driven entirely by political friction. King's diary entries from the time reveal he didn't see the Marsh Report as a great moral crusade.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Of course not. So what was it to him?
SPEAKER_00He saw it as a tactical weapon. Specifically, he needed a way to counter the rising power of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, or the CCF.
SPEAKER_02Ah, the CCF.
SPEAKER_00Right. They were this formidable democratic socialist movement gaining massive traction in the polls, and they were promising radical economic restructuring.
SPEAKER_02So King was basically forced into it.
SPEAKER_00Pretty much. King's genius, according to the author, was his ability to manage competing pressures and co-opt his opponents' momentum rather than actually pursuing a coherent social vision of his own.
SPEAKER_02That is so cynical but brilliant. But Marsh himself didn't back down from that massive $900 million price tag, did he?
SPEAKER_00No, not at all. He actually took the financial critique head on within the report itself.
SPEAKER_02The text highlights this brilliant rhetorical defense where Marsh pointed out that society had just demonstrated it could effortlessly mobilize billions of dollars for the destruction of human life in World War II.
SPEAKER_00Right.
SPEAKER_02Therefore, it could surely mobilize a fraction of that capital for the preservation of life. The quote the author pulls is just striking.
SPEAKER_00Oh, it really is.
SPEAKER_02He said, if it is argued that the costs involved are large, it can be replied that so is the problem.
SPEAKER_00What's fascinating here is how Marsh preempted the fiscal conservatives by completely reframing the very concept of a national budget.
SPEAKER_02How so?
SPEAKER_00Well, he argued that the question wasn't whether Canada could afford the system, but whether the national economy could afford not to have it, given the compounding long-term costs of deep poverty.
SPEAKER_02That makes total sense. But with King hesitant, the price tag astronomical, and the country still physically at war, how does any of this blueprint actually translate into law?
SPEAKER_00The text asserts the answer is pure political calculus. The very first piece of Marsh's blueprint to pass wasn't driven by altruism or even economic theory. No. No, it was a Family Allowances Act of 1944, and the author reveals it was pushed through primarily to secure liberal votes in Quebec, where the CCF was making dangerous electoral inroads.
SPEAKER_02So the foundation of the modern welfare state gets poured because of a partisan turf war for votes.
SPEAKER_00Essentially, yeah.
SPEAKER_02The mechanism itself, though, was revolutionary for the time. It cost about $250 million a year, sending five to eight dollars a month directly to mothers for every child under 16.
SPEAKER_00Which was a big deal back then.
SPEAKER_02Huge. And the text clarifies this wasn't designed to replace a working salary. It was just an acknowledgement of the high supplemental costs of raising kids.
SPEAKER_00Right. But the really crucial innovation was that it was the first truly universal program in Canadian history.
SPEAKER_02Universal, meaning everyone got it.
SPEAKER_00Precisely. No relief officers coming to your house to audit your pantry, no proving you were sufficiently destitute to deserve it. Wow. If you were a mother with a child under 16, the check just arrived. It was a structural recognition of the social value of child rearing.
SPEAKER_02That's a massive shift.
SPEAKER_00It was nice. But the text notes that the arguments made against it established this vocabulary of opposition that would be used against social programs for the next 80 years.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, the opposition detailed in the source is intense. Charlotte Whitten, for example, she was a pioneering social worker who later became mayor of Ottawa. She opposed it with arguments the text describes as having distinct eugenic undertones.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, that part is tough to read.
SPEAKER_02She publicly argued that distributing unconditional funds to large families would encourage excessive reproduction among those she deemed least intellectually and economically equipped to raise children.
SPEAKER_00Just incredibly harsh. And beyond the moralizing, you had the raw fiscal opposition, too.
SPEAKER_02Right.
SPEAKER_00Conservative leader John Bracken called it entirely unaffordable and administratively impossible to execute.
SPEAKER_02And the business press chimed in too, right?
SPEAKER_00Oh yeah. They went further, claiming that giving working class families an unconditional cash floor would inherently kill the incentive to work.
SPEAKER_02Despite all that aggressive doomsaying, the text points out that the checks rolled out in July 1945 and the sky didn't fall.
SPEAKER_00Nope.
SPEAKER_02In fact, the impact on child poverty was immediate and statistically measurable.
SPEAKER_00It really worked.
SPEAKER_02And the author argues this fundamentally shifted the philosophy of the Canadian state. Suddenly, the state had a direct material obligation to its citizens as citizens, not just as the deserving poor.
SPEAKER_00Yes, that philosophical shift was the true legacy of the Family Allowances Act. But the text makes a sharp pivot here. While family allowances passed relatively quickly due to, you know, political expediency and the emotional appeal of helping children, the post-war battle over expanding unemployment insurance was a grueling, protracted tug of war.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Here's where it gets really interesting. Yeah. Because UI touches the raw nerve of the labor market directly. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00Exactly.
SPEAKER_02Trevor Burrus Expanding UI meant extending benefits, covering more categories of workers, and increasing the duration of payouts. The text outlines how this faced relentless pressure from employer organizations and fiscal conservatives.
SPEAKER_00And they deployed an argument we still hear constantly today, right? That generous unemployment benefits make people choose not to work. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02Right. The underlying logic they pushed was that if you pay someone adequately not to work, they will simply take the money and remove themselves from the labor pool.
SPEAKER_00The author refers to this as the rational maximizer myth, and the text spends considerable time dismantling it.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell How did they dismantle it?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Well, the critique here is that this economic model treats human beings as perfectly calculating machines who only work for raw financial output.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Just ignoring everything else about being human.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell Exactly. It completely ignores all sociological and psychological evidence to the contrary.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell The text goes incredibly hard against this framing. It uses the example of a machinist who works in a shop for 20 years and then loses his job. Right. The author argues this machinist doesn't just sit at his kitchen table with a UI benefit schedule, optimizing a leisure-to-benefit ratio.
SPEAKER_00No, of course not.
SPEAKER_02He has lost his community, his daily structure, his sense of purpose. Work is identity. To reduce him to a purely economic calculator ignores the behavioral reality of why humans actually participate in society.
SPEAKER_00That's a really powerful point from the source.
SPEAKER_02It is. But I do want to challenge the text's narrative here just slightly. The author harshly criticizes the policymakers who drove the severe UI restrictions in the 1990s.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, they really go after them.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Surely those architects of austerity had some kind of macroeconomic data or modeling to back up their policy shifts. Or does the author view it purely as an ideological crusade?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell Well, looking strictly at the source material, the text explicitly asserts that this opposition was driven by ideology and a fundamental misunderstanding of human motivation.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Oh, really? No data.
SPEAKER_00The author actually notes a remarkable absence of supporting evidence for the claim that UI was creating mass voluntary unemployment in the nineties.
SPEAKER_02Interesting.
SPEAKER_00The text grounds its critique in the idea that treating workers strictly as rational maximizers does enormous sociological damage when used as the basis for national policy. And crucially, the author argues these critics entirely missed the hidden macroeconomic brilliance of unemployment insurance.
SPEAKER_02You mean its role as an automatic stabilizer? Let's dive into the mechanics of those automatic stabilizers, because the text frames it as a secret weapon of economic management.
SPEAKER_00It really is.
SPEAKER_02It's essentially a built-in shock absorber that requires no new legislation during a crisis.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. An automatic stabilizer acts countercyclically to the broader economy.
SPEAKER_02Break that down for me.
SPEAKER_00Sure. So when a recession hits and the private sector sheds jobs, UI automatically starts pumping capital directly into the local economy through benefit payouts.
SPEAKER_02Right, because more people are claiming it.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. And people use that money immediately to buy groceries and pay rent. That keeps local businesses afloat and prevents further layoffs.
SPEAKER_02It catches the fall.
SPEAKER_00Yep. And conversely, during an economic boom, unemployment falls, and the UI system naturally collects more in premiums than it pays out.
SPEAKER_02So it effectively pulls excess capital out and cools the economy down. You got it. The text points out that this counter-cyclical flow is exactly what prevents the catastrophic positive feedback loops that caused the depths of the 1933 Depression. Right. In the 30s, falling employment led directly to falling consumer spending, which just led to more businesses closing and more falling employment. UI breaks that death spiral.
SPEAKER_00It's a brilliant mechanism.
SPEAKER_02So we've got families covered, and we've got a macroeconomic shock absorber for unemployment. But the friction over UI showed how fiercely the market resisted paying healthy workers not to work.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, it was a massive fight.
SPEAKER_02The next battleground the text explores wasn't about wages, though. It was about pure survival, the catastrophic costs of healthcare.
SPEAKER_00Yes.
SPEAKER_02And surprisingly, this didn't start at the federal level with Marshall's blueprint, did it?
SPEAKER_00No, it started at the provincial level, specifically with Tommy Douglas and the CCF government in Saskatchewan in 1947. Right. They implemented the Saskatchewan hospital insurance plan. It was financed by a flat $5 family levy and general provincial revenues.
SPEAKER_02And what did it cover?
SPEAKER_00It covered standard ward stays, nursing, meals, and necessary medications.
SPEAKER_02But wait, why start with hospitals? Why not cover routine doctors' visits first?
SPEAKER_00If we connect this to the bigger picture, it was an incredibly pragmatic strategy to divide the opposition.
SPEAKER_02How so?
SPEAKER_00The text points out that the medical profession's resistance to this 1947 hospital plan was actually somewhat muted, especially compared to how fiercely doctors fought against full Medicare later in the 1960s.
SPEAKER_02Why weren't they fighting the hospital plan?
SPEAKER_00Because catastrophic hospital room bills were the very things bankrupting patients before they ever saw the surgeon's invoice.
SPEAKER_02Ah, and a bankrupt patient can't pay their doctor.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. Therefore, doctors actually had a vested financial interest in making sure their patient's wealth wasn't entirely wiped out by the hospital facility.
SPEAKER_02That is a fascinating, almost cynical alignment of interests. The doctors let the hospital insurance pass because it protected their own revenue streams.
SPEAKER_00Pretty much.
SPEAKER_02But strategically, it worked perfectly for the CCF.
SPEAKER_00It did. The Saskatchewan experiment ran for a decade and proved that universal publicly administered health insurance was operationally feasible. Right. Oh, the private insurance industry had published endless literature claiming a public system would overwhelm hospital capacity, cause rampant medical tourism, and just destroy the quality of care.
SPEAKER_02But the data proved otherwise.
SPEAKER_00The data from Saskatchewan refuted those theoretical objections with hard operational evidence. It laid the undeniable groundwork for the national Medicare system that followed. Yeah, the big picture stuff.
SPEAKER_02It ultimately comes down to a massive conceptual clash between private insurance and social insurance.
SPEAKER_00Yes. Private insurance relies entirely on what is called the actuarial principle. Right. This means the insurer calculates and charges premiums based on individual risk assessment. If you are older, if you have a pre-existing medical condition, or if you work a physically dangerous job, the free market dictates you pay significantly higher premiums.
SPEAKER_02Or, as the text notes, they just deny you coverage entirely because you are mathematically unprofitable.
SPEAKER_00Exactly.
SPEAKER_02The author argues this results in a fundamental market failure. The exact people who need the insurance the most are structurally the least able to afford it.
SPEAKER_00It's a paradox.
SPEAKER_02It reminds me of a company that will gladly sell you an umbrella, but they write a clause into the contract that allows them to legally repossess it the very second the sky gets dark.
SPEAKER_00That's a great way to think about it.
SPEAKER_02It's totally logical for the company's bottom line, but it completely defeats the social utility of an umbrella. So what does this all mean for Marsh's vision?
SPEAKER_00That analogy captures the author's critique perfectly. Social insurance entirely rejects that actuarial logic. Okay. It functions on the premise that membership must be compulsory and contributions must be progressive based on income, not risk. Everyone is forced into the same risk pool.
SPEAKER_02So the healthy mathematically subsidize the sick.
SPEAKER_00Yes. And the young mathematically subsidize the old.
SPEAKER_02And the text is quick to point out that critics, specifically fiscal conservatives, constantly label this cross-subsidization as a form of theft or wealth confiscation.
SPEAKER_00They do, but the author beautifully frames it as something entirely different. It isn't theft, it is the operationalization of the social contract.
SPEAKER_02The social contract.
SPEAKER_00Right. It's the material, financial proof that members of a community have binding obligations to one another. And the most profound insight in the text is the argument that this system actually generates freedom.
SPEAKER_02Right, because the author notes that a worker who pays UI premiums their entire adult life without ever drawing a single dime hasn't been robbed.
SPEAKER_00Exactly.
SPEAKER_02They live their life with the benefit of the guarantee. Knowing that the floor is there, knowing you won't fall into the abyss if you get sick, allows you to take risks.
SPEAKER_00It changes how you live.
SPEAKER_02It allows you to quit a toxic job, start a small business, or invest capital in your kids' education without the paralyzing fear of absolute destitution. It fundamentally separates a society from a mere marketplace.
SPEAKER_00Which brings us to the rather poignant conclusion of Leonard Marsh's story.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, what happened, though?
SPEAKER_00Well, the architect of this entire philosophy moved to the University of British Columbia in 1947. He watched from a distance as his 1943 blueprint slowly, piecemeal, came to life over the next two decades.
SPEAKER_02With the implementation of Medicare and the Canada Pension Plan.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. And he died in 1982.
SPEAKER_021982, which uh the text notes is right before the political winds shifted drastically.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. He died just before the Trudeau government began what the author describes as the long, systematic contraction of social expenditures. Wow. The text states that Marsh was spared the knowledge of the last 40 years, a period where, according to the author's deeply critical view, policymakers have been quietly removing the planks of his floor one by one while pretending to the public that the architecture remains sound.
SPEAKER_02That is chilling. It really emphasizes the author's final thesis. The Marsh report wasn't just administrative innovation or a clever rebalancing of tax codes. It was a profound act of moral imagination.
SPEAKER_00It really was.
SPEAKER_02He didn't just crunch numbers for the sake of bureaucratic efficiency. He built this structure for the man standing in the relief line in his only good clothes. He built it for the prairie farmer, losing his land to the dust, and for the widow who couldn't pay the hospital bill.
SPEAKER_00He saw the real people.
SPEAKER_02He saw the human vulnerability that the free market found mathematically convenient, and he decided to engineer a floor.
SPEAKER_00This raises an important question, though, about the durability of that mid century engineering in our modern context.
SPEAKER_02It really does. And I want to turn this directly to you, the listener, with a final thought to mull over.
SPEAKER_00Yeah.
SPEAKER_02Marsh designed this intricate $900 million floor in 1943. He built it assuming a world of traditional lifelong. Factory employment, a standard nuclear family structure, and a relatively predictable industrial economy.
SPEAKER_00Right, a very different world.
SPEAKER_02But look at where we are today. We are entering the era of the gig economy, remote asynchronous work, and massive AI job displacement. The whole concept of traditional employment is fracturing.
SPEAKER_00It's fundamentally changing.
SPEAKER_02So as you go about your week, ask yourself: does Marsh's 1940s floor just need a few new planks and some updated math? Or do we need to fundamentally design an entirely new architecture of security for the 21st century?
SPEAKER_00That is the ultimate question we are left to grapple with as the economy shifts beneath our feet.
SPEAKER_02Think on that the next time you see a seemingly boring government document sitting on a desk. Thanks for joining us on this deep dive.