>Would we expect her to a) not speak at Citadel if asked or b) request less than market rates for doing so?
Yes
Yes
Why is it so hard to comprehend that some people have issue with government employees diving back and forth from regulation of entities to taking large sums of money from them?
* Fit in a few speeches * Be worth $700,000 * Not be confidential, go against FTC rules, or raise ethical concerns * Isn't known to other researchers or experts (that could actually provide a research paper with supporting materials)
Further, is this the market rate for other financial experts, or just ones that have access to power and the ability to influence? Are there any financial experts or academics being compensated $50,000/hour to speak and don't have influence or power over financial organizations?
Because she is already working for the state? If I was constantly holding talks for the competition instead of working I would get into a lot of trouble with my boss. I know this is different for politicians and some other government positions, to the point where in some countries a) they get a full living wage for doing literally nothing and b) get a bonus every time they show up(with show up meaning their presence was recorded for an attosecond that day). Its one of the reasons I consider the government of my home country a bad joke.
There aren't many of them so the is a resource scarcity. I'm not trying to suggest 700k in speaking fees isn't a bribe, but how much of a bribe is it?
I'd speak at a single conference for $1000, her $130k fee means her time is 130x more valuable as mine and I think that could be true.
There should be no going rate for a former fed chairman. It's a position of public trust that should not lead to personal profit.
If you want former fed chairs to never work in the industry again you're going to have to significantly increase compensation and make it a pension for life even after they retire. And the fact of the matter is that's just not how the system works right now so "well maybe we SHOULD tear down the whole system and do it differently" is not really a constructive point in the discussion, it's just a childish tantrum. If you think that's how the system should work, go pass some legislation.
Is a position as a lecture of Economics at Harvard considering working for personal profit? Writing books on subjects that they are experts in? How about writing for the NYTimes? Appearing on TV? What about if they did all those things before taking a government job?
If your answer is yes to those things, then taking a high-level government position becomes impossible for anyone working class. Since you believe that the position bars them from any worthwhile future employment, they have to be independently wealthy before entering government service.
I personally enjoy reading the works of Ben Bernanke and think that he should be allowed to continue his work in economics despite having held a top position at the federal government. He's intelligent, insightful, and a good teacher.
Before I answer, are you seriously arguing that taking a job as a professor is the same as getting paid 1 million dollars for ~10 hours of work?
The debate seems to be over the price. $700k / yr from lecturing to hedge funds is bad but $150k / yr to do the same at Harvard is good?
(2) Her salary is in line with others in her position and is given in exchange for doing actual work.
(3) Harvard is not in a position to directly profit from potentially privileged information leaking out in her lectures to students
(4) Harvard is not in a position to directly benefit from Yellen influencing current government regulators/policy makers
(5) Harvard is not in a position to directly benefit from Yellen taking a subsequent regulatory/policy position in government
They don't? Harvard's $40 billion endowment is larger than Citadel's assets managed. Harvard is a hedge fund that does education as a side hustle.
We can't go back in time and pass ethics laws.