3 ms·

So all of these fall into the category of quasi-advertising / brand building. I'm not inviting Alec Baldwin for his knowledge / advice. Are you saying Yellen

So all of these fall into the category of quasi-advertising / brand building. I'm not inviting Alec Baldwin for his knowledge / advice. Are you saying Yellen is not being paid for her knowledge / advice?

CubsFan1060 6y ago
Charles Koch? I am struggling to think that there are any examples that you won't dismiss, no matter how applicable. Dan Schulman, Dara Khosrowshahi, Dr. Helmut Panke. And now I'm bored of scrolling through.
- michael_j_ward 6y ago
  Charles Koch falls in the bin of "earns more on their wealth during that time." There is another bin that is "paid for brand-building advertisement." - i.e. celebrities. The proposition is that ex-government officials are just getting paid market rate for her knowledge and insight. If that's the case, it should be trivially easy to find non government officials people getting paid $300k a speech for their knowledge. You've identified listings - which is better than I thought there would be ! - but not sales. Yellen earned $7.2m in two years. If all three of those combined earned half as much in speaking fees over that same time, I'd be definitely convinced that it's ho-hum
- michael_j_ward 6y ago
  Adding here because I can't reply to my own link If you're a motivated research reading this interested in answering this empirically, I'd suggest trying to find organizations that both pay this level of fees and have to disclose it to the public when they do (I'm hoping this might be the case for public companies under SEC regs, but that's just a hope)
threatofrain 6y ago
> The only reason outrage seems justified is that the demographics of those that can charge $300k a speech appears overwhelmingly dominated by government officials. People spent the energy to provide sources. Are you spending the same time? What sources provides you the confidence to say that some demographics are "overwhelmingly dominated"...?
- michael_j_ward 6y ago
  Strong possibility that it suffers from visibility bias. And that's exactly the bias I'm trying to eliminate with my question.
mattkrause 6y ago
You asked for "non politician, non regulator, non government officials", so that's what I dug up. It doesn't seem like a crazy idea for a corporate retreat-style event. Have a day full of internal presentations reviewing the last year, describing future initiatives, etc. After dinner, Yellen talks, telling some stories about her time on the Fed, working with Clinton, and maybe caps it off with a section about "Future Challenges." People like hearing/meeting celebrities, so it caps the day off nicely while being reasonably educational too.

CubsFan1060 6y ago

Charles Koch? I am struggling to think that there are any examples that you won't dismiss, no matter how applicable. Dan Schulman, Dara Khosrowshahi, Dr. Helmut Panke. And now I'm bored of scrolling through.

michael_j_ward 6y ago
Charles Koch falls in the bin of "earns more on their wealth during that time." There is another bin that is "paid for brand-building advertisement." - i.e. celebrities. The proposition is that ex-government officials are just getting paid market rate for her knowledge and insight. If that's the case, it should be trivially easy to find non government officials people getting paid $300k a speech for their knowledge. You've identified listings - which is better than I thought there would be ! - but not sales. Yellen earned $7.2m in two years. If all three of those combined earned half as much in speaking fees over that same time, I'd be definitely convinced that it's ho-hum
michael_j_ward 6y ago
Adding here because I can't reply to my own link If you're a motivated research reading this interested in answering this empirically, I'd suggest trying to find organizations that both pay this level of fees and have to disclose it to the public when they do (I'm hoping this might be the case for public companies under SEC regs, but that's just a hope)

threatofrain 6y ago

> The only reason outrage seems justified is that the demographics of those that can charge $300k a speech appears overwhelmingly dominated by government officials. People spent the energy to provide sources. Are you spending the same time? What sources provides you the confidence to say that some demographics are "overwhelmingly dominated"...?

michael_j_ward 6y ago
Strong possibility that it suffers from visibility bias. And that's exactly the bias I'm trying to eliminate with my question.

mattkrause 6y ago

You asked for "non politician, non regulator, non government officials", so that's what I dug up. It doesn't seem like a crazy idea for a corporate retreat-style event. Have a day full of internal presentations reviewing the last year, describing future initiatives, etc. After dinner, Yellen talks, telling some stories about her time on the Fed, working with Clinton, and maybe caps it off with a section about "Future Challenges." People like hearing/meeting celebrities, so it caps the day off nicely while being reasonably educational too.