3 ms·

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

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.
- monkeydreams 6y ago
  > I said enough of a situation exists to warrant asking the question. That's fine, but it has nothing to do with what the article says, nor that this submission is blatant politicising - an act which HN seems to pretend it is above. People keep downvoting me for reiterating the point - this is not a conflict of interest (as demonstrated by years of precedence), nor did the Press Secretary ignore the question, nor is this an unusual situation for past and current public servants to be in. Show me an actual conflict of interest and I'll grab my pitchfork. Show me a blatant political "wahtaboutsim" with no real substance and I'll thrust my pitchfork in it's direction as well, internet points be damned!
  - kodah 6y ago
    > an act which HN seems to pretend it is above. I don't know what would lead you to believe this. HN can be a very political place. Some are conservative, some are liberal, some are libertarian, some are just totally other. That's just for the US side too, wait until the people overseas wake up. You get a very wide range of understandings and perspectives here that you should absolutely learn to appreciate without maximalist conclusions. As I said about news earlier, there's a little bit of truth to everything you just have to bother to look. > People keep downvoting me for reiterating the point Generally, it's bad etiquette (and against the guidelines) to talk about downvoting behavior. It's also generally bad to arrive at maximalist conclusions, but you also did that. Feel free to give these a read: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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.

monkeydreams 6y ago
> I said enough of a situation exists to warrant asking the question. That's fine, but it has nothing to do with what the article says, nor that this submission is blatant politicising - an act which HN seems to pretend it is above. People keep downvoting me for reiterating the point - this is not a conflict of interest (as demonstrated by years of precedence), nor did the Press Secretary ignore the question, nor is this an unusual situation for past and current public servants to be in. Show me an actual conflict of interest and I'll grab my pitchfork. Show me a blatant political "wahtaboutsim" with no real substance and I'll thrust my pitchfork in it's direction as well, internet points be damned!
- kodah 6y ago
  > an act which HN seems to pretend it is above. I don't know what would lead you to believe this. HN can be a very political place. Some are conservative, some are liberal, some are libertarian, some are just totally other. That's just for the US side too, wait until the people overseas wake up. You get a very wide range of understandings and perspectives here that you should absolutely learn to appreciate without maximalist conclusions. As I said about news earlier, there's a little bit of truth to everything you just have to bother to look. > People keep downvoting me for reiterating the point Generally, it's bad etiquette (and against the guidelines) to talk about downvoting behavior. It's also generally bad to arrive at maximalist conclusions, but you also did that. Feel free to give these a read: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html