4 ms·

> Where else is the POTUS going to get advisors except from the firms who pay the most money to get the best employees / speakers? The local CPA? Ergo - the wid

> Where else is the POTUS going to get advisors except from the firms who pay the most money to get the best employees / speakers? The local CPA? Ergo - the wider implication is bunk. I'm not convinced that everyone who's knowledgeable enough to preside over this hearing has been paid by this specific firm. Nobody's saying that the advisor on this issue needs to have never given a paid speech or worked for one of the big players. They're saying that the advisor should not have been paid $800,000 by Citadel over the course of multiple speaking arrangements because that's an obvious sign of a preexisting relationship and therefore a conflict of interest.

monkeydreams 6y ago
> I'm not convinced that everyone who's knowledgeable enough to preside over this hearing has been paid by this specific firm. Literally every economic decision Yellen has to advise upon will affect some firm or organisation to which she has provided services. > Nobody's saying that the advisor on this issue needs to have never given a paid speech or worked for one of the big players. But this is exactly what you are saying by implication. Whatever regulatory outcome occurs here will affect all trading firms, which means that all advisors will have been paid by someone at some stage in the past affected by any outcome. > They're saying that the advisor should not have been paid $800,000 by Citadel over the course of multiple speaking arrangements because that's an obvious sign of a preexisting relationship and therefore a conflict of interest. That is not how conflict of interest works. If there is no current relationship, and no indication of a future relationship (e.g. quid pro quo or a promise of employment), and no obvious link to the firm (e.g. an unpaid board seat, etc), then I am finding it hard to see how a conflict of interest might occur.
- byecomputer 6y ago
  > Whatever regulatory outcome occurs here will affect all trading firms, which means that all advisors will have been paid by someone at some stage in the past affected by any outcome. That's unavoidable, but it doesn't change the absolutely controllable and simple request that the investigator not have a direct relationship with the firm in question. > That is not how conflict of interest works. If there is no current relationship, and no indication of a future relationship (e.g. quid pro quo or a promise of employment), and no obvious link to the firm (e.g. an unpaid board seat, etc), then I am finding it hard to see how a conflict of interest might occur. Conflicts of interest do not have to be concurrent in order to be disqualifying. Recusal as an administrative official is generally warranted when one's impartiality could be reasonably questioned due to some significant past-or-present relationship with the parties involved that reaches beyond their role as a public servant.

monkeydreams 6y ago

> I'm not convinced that everyone who's knowledgeable enough to preside over this hearing has been paid by this specific firm. Literally every economic decision Yellen has to advise upon will affect some firm or organisation to which she has provided services. > Nobody's saying that the advisor on this issue needs to have never given a paid speech or worked for one of the big players. But this is exactly what you are saying by implication. Whatever regulatory outcome occurs here will affect all trading firms, which means that all advisors will have been paid by someone at some stage in the past affected by any outcome. > They're saying that the advisor should not have been paid $800,000 by Citadel over the course of multiple speaking arrangements because that's an obvious sign of a preexisting relationship and therefore a conflict of interest. That is not how conflict of interest works. If there is no current relationship, and no indication of a future relationship (e.g. quid pro quo or a promise of employment), and no obvious link to the firm (e.g. an unpaid board seat, etc), then I am finding it hard to see how a conflict of interest might occur.

byecomputer 6y ago
> Whatever regulatory outcome occurs here will affect all trading firms, which means that all advisors will have been paid by someone at some stage in the past affected by any outcome. That's unavoidable, but it doesn't change the absolutely controllable and simple request that the investigator not have a direct relationship with the firm in question. > That is not how conflict of interest works. If there is no current relationship, and no indication of a future relationship (e.g. quid pro quo or a promise of employment), and no obvious link to the firm (e.g. an unpaid board seat, etc), then I am finding it hard to see how a conflict of interest might occur. Conflicts of interest do not have to be concurrent in order to be disqualifying. Recusal as an administrative official is generally warranted when one's impartiality could be reasonably questioned due to some significant past-or-present relationship with the parties involved that reaches beyond their role as a public servant.