2 ms·

> WH did not ignore the question. The press secretary declined to speak POTUS or Yellen's mind for them, and instead implied that it would not be a problem if Y

by kodah 6y ago

> WH did not ignore the question. The press secretary declined to speak POTUS or Yellen's mind for them, and instead implied that it would not be a problem if Yellen did recuse because there was a full economics team. Ergo - the headline is bunk. The Press Secretary chose to reason about her accomplishments to explain the large sum of money (I don't think any Americans are surprised that former bureaucrats profit off of the system after participation.) I think some would call that "dodging" because she's not really directly answering the question. How to not be dodging => "We take conflicts of interest, undue influence, and affiliation seriously. You will have an answer as soon as POTUS is properly briefed as to your readers concerns." > CoI declarations and recusals are for when someone stands to gain, where someone has previously gained and feels beholden, or where the impression of a CoI might arise. Yellen spoke to many, many firms but, due to the fact she was only paid to speak, likely does not feel beholden to these firms now or in the future. Ergo - the lede is bunk. This ignores that any person can be motivated to benefit people who have benefitted them prior. Maybe she's made enough money to sustain herself in the event that she upsets enough former clients in the process of making decisions that benefit the American people, maybe not though. That question is worth answering when someone makes close to a million dollars by just speaking. This is precisely what recusal is for, and since she was forthright about it before I think it makes sense to at the very least entertain the request (which this wasn't even a request, this was more like, "Did you know and what do you plan to do?") > People who are hired by governments to offer advice do so within the domain of their expertise. Now, perhaps there are a few eager amateurs out there who have never drawn a paycheck in their area of expertise, but to state that Yellen should not advise the President on the biggest stock market scandal of the year because she once drew a paycheck for talking to them at one time is a damn long bow to draw. Again, Yellen has benefitted from one of the key players. If there are outcomes that could potentially benefit them then it makes sense to identify conflicts of interest early. I don't know why that wouldn't be a priority to this administration given the last four years of administration we've had. > 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. From advisors who haven't spent time or benefited directly from firms involved. As you and the Press Secretary stated, there's a wider economics team that is useful here, I'm sure a non-zero amount of them are both qualified and do not have some first order conflict of interest. That said, asking the question of whether she has a conflict of interest, and even her association, I don't think outright means she needs to recuse herself. If she were leaning in the direction of giving something of a beneficial outcome to Citadel, then maybe recusal would make sense. That is a decision she and the Biden administration will have to live with, but as I said before, not an unfair question to ask. > So the headline, lede and implication of the article are bunk. Given that this article is from a pro-Trump news aggregator / commentator site, and given that politics has become so polarised, this appears to be the conflating of a molehill with a mountain for the sake of political gain. When I googled the headline only conservative websites came up. That doesn't mean much though. > Since the end of 2017, Real Clear Politics has had a rightward, pro-Trump turn in its content. According to a 2020 Knight Foundation study, RealClearPolitics is generally read by a moderate audience, leaning slightly toward the right Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClearPolitics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClearPolitics This same concern was presented by the Guardian prior to any GameStop drama and before Biden was President: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jan/01/janet-yellen-speaking-fees-us-treasury-secretary https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jan/01/janet-yelle... So, does the question deserve to be asked: I think yes, it sounds fair to ask. Does she need to recuse herself? Well, that's a question that ultimately only administrations and she can answer.

monkeydreams 6y ago
People keep saying that there is a conflict of interest - but no one has pointed out where this exists. Yellen was the head of the Federal Reserve, she is an in-demand speaker. The precedent exists that merely providing speaking services does not constitute a conflict of interest. Everyone, of every political stripe, goes on the speaking circuit when they hit a certain level. If you want to rail against this, be my guest as you and I would be in furious agreement, however.... > The Press Secretary chose to reason about her accomplishments to explain the large sum of money (I don't think any Americans are surprised that former bureaucrats profit off of the system after participation.) I think some would call that "dodging" because she's not really directly answering the question. ... this is not a conflict of interest, and implying that it is a conflict of interest is NOT the press sec's job. It is not dodging to reject the premise of the question and explain how advice might be handled in a hypothetical case. Was it perfectly explained? No, but it is telling no other media outlet really thought the response was odd. > This same concern was presented by the Guardian prior to any GameStop drama and before Biden was President: Is the practice shady? Perhaps. Is Yellen doing anything wrong by working on the talk circuit? No. The precedent is well established and you would be hard-pressed to find an accomplished and competent bureaucrat who has worked directly for POTUS who hasn't either left for directorships in the private sector or worked the talk circuit. The practice is not considered conflict of interest and until that is changed this just has all the appearances of a cherry-picked example which, coincidently, targets a woman in a traditionally male position.
- kodah 6y ago
  > this is not a conflict of interest I did not unilaterally declare that there is one. I said enough of a situation exists to warrant asking the question. You called it a straw man, I said it looks vaguely conflicting enough to be an appropriate question. > and implying that it is a conflict of interest is NOT the press sec's job This is what I said might've helped: "We take conflicts of interest, undue influence, and affiliation seriously. You will have an answer as soon as POTUS is properly briefed as to your readers concerns." I don't really see how this implies that there is one. In fact, it feels like pretty lukewarm corporate PR to me that admits to nothing and commits to very little. I thought I was being pretty fair here. > No, but it is telling no other media outlet really thought the response was odd. Not really, and I'd encourage you not to rely on this logic. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat or really anything in between. Maybe independent sums me up? Who knows. Regardless, while this vantage point routinely gets me whalloped over the head with mainstay arguments and talking points, it's shown me how binary the news cycles can be. In reality, there's little bits of truth to most stuff, which is why I don't fully embrace these kinds of claims but I also most certainly don't fully deny them either. Instead, I let bureaucracy do what it does best: process stuff; which is why I think it's a valid question to ask to a massive bureaucracy. > Is the practice shady? Perhaps. > If you want to rail against this, be my guest as you and I would be in furious agreement, however.... > Is Yellen doing anything wrong by working on the talk circuit? No. Personally, I don't care if you want to go make money talking about your time in government. Usually it's when you try to represent yourself as not-a-lobbyist in the private sector or return to politics after making lots of friends in the private sector off the back of your previous political gig. I can't tell you why, it just feels like there's a large amount of room for bad things to happen. Sounds like we'd probably agree.

by kodah 6y ago

monkeydreams 6y ago

People keep saying that there is a conflict of interest - but no one has pointed out where this exists. Yellen was the head of the Federal Reserve, she is an in-demand speaker. The precedent exists that merely providing speaking services does not constitute a conflict of interest. Everyone, of every political stripe, goes on the speaking circuit when they hit a certain level. If you want to rail against this, be my guest as you and I would be in furious agreement, however.... > The Press Secretary chose to reason about her accomplishments to explain the large sum of money (I don't think any Americans are surprised that former bureaucrats profit off of the system after participation.) I think some would call that "dodging" because she's not really directly answering the question. ... this is not a conflict of interest, and implying that it is a conflict of interest is NOT the press sec's job. It is not dodging to reject the premise of the question and explain how advice might be handled in a hypothetical case. Was it perfectly explained? No, but it is telling no other media outlet really thought the response was odd. > This same concern was presented by the Guardian prior to any GameStop drama and before Biden was President: Is the practice shady? Perhaps. Is Yellen doing anything wrong by working on the talk circuit? No. The precedent is well established and you would be hard-pressed to find an accomplished and competent bureaucrat who has worked directly for POTUS who hasn't either left for directorships in the private sector or worked the talk circuit. The practice is not considered conflict of interest and until that is changed this just has all the appearances of a cherry-picked example which, coincidently, targets a woman in a traditionally male position.

kodah 6y ago
> this is not a conflict of interest I did not unilaterally declare that there is one. I said enough of a situation exists to warrant asking the question. You called it a straw man, I said it looks vaguely conflicting enough to be an appropriate question. > and implying that it is a conflict of interest is NOT the press sec's job This is what I said might've helped: "We take conflicts of interest, undue influence, and affiliation seriously. You will have an answer as soon as POTUS is properly briefed as to your readers concerns." I don't really see how this implies that there is one. In fact, it feels like pretty lukewarm corporate PR to me that admits to nothing and commits to very little. I thought I was being pretty fair here. > No, but it is telling no other media outlet really thought the response was odd. Not really, and I'd encourage you not to rely on this logic. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat or really anything in between. Maybe independent sums me up? Who knows. Regardless, while this vantage point routinely gets me whalloped over the head with mainstay arguments and talking points, it's shown me how binary the news cycles can be. In reality, there's little bits of truth to most stuff, which is why I don't fully embrace these kinds of claims but I also most certainly don't fully deny them either. Instead, I let bureaucracy do what it does best: process stuff; which is why I think it's a valid question to ask to a massive bureaucracy. > Is the practice shady? Perhaps. > If you want to rail against this, be my guest as you and I would be in furious agreement, however.... > Is Yellen doing anything wrong by working on the talk circuit? No. Personally, I don't care if you want to go make money talking about your time in government. Usually it's when you try to represent yourself as not-a-lobbyist in the private sector or return to politics after making lots of friends in the private sector off the back of your previous political gig. I can't tell you why, it just feels like there's a large amount of room for bad things to happen. Sounds like we'd probably agree.