Not sure I get your point?
700k might be a small sum (I don't think it is, but ok) for her, but she still accepted it.
700k might be a small sum (I don't think it is, but ok) for her, but she still accepted it.
The type of people who would overlook crimes by others because the company that the criminals worked for once paid them to give a speech & attend a mixer is probably not the type that would work at the SEC for any meaningful length of time. The pay disparity is just too great.
Malicious people work for the SEC just long enough to understand the inner workings and/or collect critical intel that they can leverage into private sector jobs.
If Yellen lacked scruples, she would have gone into the private sector after leaving the Fed. But instead of collection a probably 8-figure paycheck, she opted to continue to work in government. Which indicates to me, that she takes pride in doing her job well.
Corporate America has taught us that even the potential appearance of bribes is a bad thing for the random employee.
We can’t accept a $30 gift card to Amazon without potentially having to talk to HR.
What you’re suggesting is that someone like Yellen is 50,000 times less interesting to consider as a possible point of corruption.
1. She did go into the private sector. She got paid for speeches. That's not a public sector job.
2. It's not mutually exclusive to enjoy public sector work while also lacking scruples. The list of corrupt politicians is endless.
There are many people in this thread and others across the internet and media who are talking about the conflict of interest. However, there's little showing what potentially bad things she is doing.
Yellen has lots of experience with the regulatory and finance institutions and their inner workings. For sharing her perspectives on how things work, what pressures they face, and how best to engage with them, she should be paid quite well. That's what these Citadel talks look like, at least until someone can connect the dots better than they have been connected.
For example, what nefarious plot is there? What regulator capture is she engaging in? Somewhere else in the thread someone mentioned car import issues with Reagan; where is the equivalent with Yellen?
Until there is a salient point to be made about her conflicts of interest, doesn't it make sense to give her the benefit of the doubt?
Her taking up that offer is no surprise.