Yellen received $800G from hedge fund in Gamestop controversy; WH doesn't commit to recusal

[Antiwar]

A Trumpist, pretending to take issue with "grifting" and not even being able to identify it.

Oy vey.




Grifting is not accepting private speaking fees. Grifting is doing shit like always steering your security detail to properties you own so that you are effectively being paid for the cost of the secret service guarding you. Or going to China to ostensibly make negotiation gains in one's idiotic trade war, but coming away with nothing but promises China has no intent of keeping and a handful of trademarks for your daughter.

If Fox News is correct: You have no problem with $800,000 speaking fees?!

 

[JasperL]

I think it's sort of valid, actually...if one looks at it as a problem in government in general, and doesn't attempt to frame it as one side or the other....which I didn't see in the OP, btw....

There is no question that there is too much corporate influence in North American politics, to where all too often their needs are prioritized over the regular citizen. When one tries to understand how that happens, this does appear to be a likely contributor.

I'm not saying there aren't private sector individuals charging exorbitant amounts of money for speaking engagements...and more power to them, if they have found a market for their thoughts, I'd love to be in their shoes. But it does get a lot more awkward when an elected official is commanding these dues...it's a bad look, and it casts doubt on their ability to do the job they were sent to do, if the needs of the folks they represent clash with the goals of the organizations paying super high fees for "speaking engagements". Not sure knee jerk dismissal is the right reaction here.

I agree. One of the big problems I had with Hillary was the speaking tour she did post SoS and collected $millions from Wall Street firms. We all know the firms paying her weren't exactly bribing her, just getting in her good graces, so that if as President something came up, they were her friends, who were really nice to her, who helped her out, etc. and so she at some level owed them.

It's the revolving door, and it's not a good thing for society. In this case, the problem is not that the firm bailed out the hedge fund that lost $2 billion or so - that was a private transaction - but that in general collecting $800k for a few days of speeches is clearly influence peddling, and we all know that.

Paulson might have been acting in the interests of the country when he did the first round of bailouts in the financial crisis, but those he bailed out were his golfing and jet setting and club buddies, his friends, those who'd helped him during his time at GS - they'd made fortunes together. It's not corrupt so much as human nature NOT to let those guys and their firms collapse to zero, even if that's in the country's interests long term, and it might not have been. Point is you can't unentangle the two.

 

[JasperL]

Remove the corporate tax deduction for money laundering through speaking fees and other “honorariums”.

That might raise a bit of money for the treasury, but the firms don't care about tax deductions for those fees. If they are as I suspect a way to subtilely influence future decisions, ANY decision by the Treasury Secretary in their favor would eclipse the trivial cost of the lost deduction by 100, or 1,000 or perhaps more likely 10,000 times or more. That's why they do it - it's a trivially small investment in the big scheme of things, and if it pays off, the rewards will be massive in comparison.

 

[OlNate]

I agree. One of the big problems I had with Hillary was the speaking tour she did post SoS and collected $millions from Wall Street firms. We all know the firms paying her weren't exactly bribing her, just getting in her good graces, so that if as President something came up, they were her friends, who were really nice to her, who helped her out, etc. and so she at some level owed them.

It's the revolving door, and it's not a good thing for society. In this case, the problem is not that the firm bailed out the hedge fund that lost $2 billion or so - that was a private transaction - but that in general collecting $800k for a few days of speeches is clearly influence peddling, and we all know that.

Paulson might have been acting in the interests of the country when he did the first round of bailouts in the financial crisis, but those he bailed out were his golfing and jet setting and club buddies, his friends, those who'd helped him during his time at GS - they'd made fortunes together. It's not corrupt so much as human nature NOT to let those guys and their firms collapse to zero, even if that's in the country's interests long term, and it might not have been. Point is you can't unentangle the two.

Re: the bolded - yup, that's the tricky part.

I wonder if it's as simple as requiring every elected representative, irrespective of what level of government they participate in, to provide a detailed and public rationale for every vote they submit, and every policy they author. Make them explain to their constituents why they make the decisions they make, and demonstrate who it benefits. If nothing else, it would make them think twice about some of the more obvious stuff, and could be used as a legitimate method to evaluate them when it comes time for reelection. What's missing is transparency...with our without allegations of corruption (which, essentially, this is), there is no where near enough accountability in government. Maybe this initiative is an easy way to curtail it somewhat, while also possibly driving public engagement in day to day politics.

I dunno, just throwing stuff out there, in lieu of having all the answers...

 

[JasperL]

The article is about speaking fees she charged after leaving the reserve in 2018. It's possible that those companies thought they were making some strange long-term bet that if they paid Yellen a lot, she might just be re-appointed at some time in the future, and might then decide to take certain paths out of a hope to reward the companies for their earlier bet.

I doubt that. I suspect it has more to do with paying someone who was inside for eight years to speak and hoping to gain insights - perhaps not intentionally revealed - into how the Fed operates, so as to be able to predict what the Fed might do in the future in a way that benefits them.

That there is a larger overall corporate investment in government influence doesn't really impact my view that what Yellen did does not seem to be wrong in any way. I'd worry more about PACs, the lobbying structure, donations, and the like.

That's probably right to some extent, but of course they could have had more than one reason to lay out a nice $800k to Yellen, hedging their bets. I would imagine if we look at the big picture, others that might be appointed in a Democratic administration also were being wooed in other ways or through speaking fees....

 

[cpwill]

That's probably right to some extent, but of course they could have had more than one reason to lay out a nice $800k to Yellen, hedging their bets.

It's an influence game, and a well-established one. If it was about "insight", then Hillary Clinton's speaking fees wouldn't have fallen by 87% once she was no longer on the path to becoming a likely next President, and Bill Clinton's speaking fee's wouldn't have skyrocketed when she became Sec State.

 

[OlNate]

psst - the author of this thread believes IT IS only a Dem problem

Sorry, bud, I didn't see that in the OP, or the one response he's given in this thread... Let's ask him.

Hey @chuckiechan , do you think this is only a Dem problem, or does it bother you when Republicans do it as well? I think I know you enough to know the answer, but let's just get it out of the way.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Sorry, bud, I didn't see that in the OP, or the one response he's given in this thread... Let's ask him.

Hey @chuckiechan , do you think this is only a Dem problem, or does it bother you when Republicans do it as well? I think I know you enough to know the answer, but let's just get it out of the way.

Did you see his snide little add on?
Americans hate one thing more than a sore loser, and that is an arrogant, vindictive—and bullying—winner.
I still maintain that political opportunism is a bipartisan phenomenon, not a Democrat phenomenon, but the author believes otherwise.

 

[JasperL]

It's an influence game, and a well-established one. If it was about "insight", then Hillary Clinton's speaking fees wouldn't have fallen by 87% once she was no longer on the path to becoming a likely next President, and Bill Clinton's speaking fee's wouldn't have skyrocketed when she became Sec State.

Right, which is why I very specifically mentioned Hillary in an earlier post.....

So, yes, I obviously agree, on that point and with Yellen, as I also mentioned. Tim Geithner is another example. He did the 'right thing' as Sec. of Treasury, and was rewarded. That's how the system works. Anyone in a position of real power in the Fed or Treasury and who can't turn their former job into at least 7 figures isn't even trying. 8 figures would take minimal effort, assuming you took care of the right people while in office.

 

[OlNate]

Did you see his snide little add on?
Americans hate one thing more than a sore loser, and that is an arrogant, vindictive—and bullying—winner.
I still maintain that political opportunism is a bipartisan phenomenon, not a Democrat phenomenon, but the author believes otherwise.

Well, let's let him answer for himself, with the question directly posed to him. @chuckiechan ?

In the meantime I totally agree with you, political opportunism is a bipartisan phenomenon. Sad that that's about the only bipartisan phenomenon these days...

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Well, let's let him answer for himself, with the question directly posed to him. @chuckiechan ?

In the meantime I totally agree with you, political opportunism is a bipartisan phenomenon. Sad that that's about the only bipartisan phenomenon these days...

and it is universal, but Americans have perfected it

 

[OlNate]

and it is universal, but Americans have perfected it

hehe...yeah...we're not far behind though.... lol

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

hehe...yeah...we're not far behind though.... lol

I will still take what we have

 

[Grandpappy]

Reading this thread has been entertaining. First the "orange man bad" stuff, then the "Everybody does it man!" stuff. Hahaha.
Joe took big bucks from Wall Street. C'mon, what did you expect? Also, these Redditors that pumped up Gamestock? Expect new laws to prevent peons from gaming the system like the suits do . Joe owes those hedge fund managers bigly.

 

[OpportunityCost]

The article is about speaking fees she charged after leaving the reserve in 2018. It's possible that those companies thought they were making some strange long-term bet that if they paid Yellen a lot, she might just be re-appointed at some time in the future, and might then decide to take certain paths out of a hope to reward the companies for their earlier bet.

I doubt that. I suspect it has more to do with paying someone who was inside for eight years to speak and hoping to gain insights - perhaps not intentionally revealed - into how the Fed operates, so as to be able to predict what the Fed might do in the future in a way that benefits them.

That there is a larger overall corporate investment in government influence doesn't really impact my view that what Yellen did does not seem to be wrong in any way. I'd worry more about PACs, the lobbying structure, donations, and the like.

To which I would reply you obviously don't understand what's been happening. Yellen was paid by an interested party in the event and shouldn't do anything and should recuse herself and let the SEC sort out any actions needed.

 

[Luce]

Oh, no. She gave a speech while she was a private citizen?

 

[ecofarm]

I think I speak for all Americans when I say, we're not doing the G thing. Just stop it. It's K.

 

[OlNate]

I will still take what we have

Any day!! lol

Still...good to consider the cautionary tales.

 

[chuckiechan]

There's a tax deduction for hiring speakers??

Sure there is. It is a legitimate business expense. It is no different than paying for a class to improve your employees productivity.

That might raise a bit of money for the treasury, but the firms don't care about tax deductions for those fees. If they are as I suspect a way to subtilely influence future decisions, ANY decision by the Treasury Secretary in their favor would eclipse the trivial cost of the lost deduction by 100, or 1,000 or perhaps more likely 10,000 times or more. That's why they do it - it's a trivially small investment in the big scheme of things, and if it pays off, the rewards will be massive in comparison.

If you can't stop it you might was well make some money on it. IMO, it is pay to play for political good will. I get that everyone does it, but we are the one's paying the price for their decisions.

 

[RAMOSS]

Yellen received $800G from hedge fund in Gamestop controversy; WH doesn't commit to recusal

Newly-confirmed Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen received around $810,000 in speaking fees from the hedge fund that bailed out one of the primary losers in the recent Gamestop frenzy.

www.foxnews.com

Really. What does anyone have to say that is worth $800K? It’s the influence they are selling During the campaign.

Yellen is another grifter grifting.

She at the time was a private citizen. She got speaking fees. So, making the claim of 'grifting' is false. Why are you giving out misinformation?

 

[RAMOSS]

If Fox News is correct: You have no problem with $800,000 speaking fees?!

If she was a private citizen, then no. If she worked for the government at the time, or in a position that influnced policies, then yes. She was a private citizen at that time

 

[Antiwar]

If she was a private citizen, then no. If she worked for the government at the time, or in a position that influnced policies, then yes. She was a private citizen at that time

That sure seems like an obscene amount of money for "speaking fees." It could very well be politically motivated. $800,000 for what?

 

[RAMOSS]

That sure seems like an obscene amount of money for "speaking fees." It could very well be politically motivated. $800,000 for what?

A speaking engagement, to an private citizen that had left her previous job as chair of the federal reserve. If she was still the chair of the federal reserve at the time, it would have been highly inappropriate. As a private citizen, who was the ex-chairman, it's not.

 

[Antiwar]

The article is about speaking fees she charged after leaving the reserve in 2018. It's possible that those companies thought they were making some strange long-term bet that if they paid Yellen a lot, she might just be re-appointed at some time in the future, and might then decide to take certain paths out of a hope to reward the companies for their earlier bet.

I doubt that. I suspect it has more to do with paying someone who was inside for eight years to speak and hoping to gain insights - perhaps not intentionally revealed - into how the Fed operates, so as to be able to predict what the Fed might do in the future in a way that benefits them.

That there is a larger overall corporate investment in government influence doesn't really impact my view that what Yellen did does not seem to be wrong in any way. I'd worry more about PACs, the lobbying structure, donations, and the like.

Chuckle.

 

[Antiwar]

A speaking engagement, to an private citizen that had left her previous job as chair of the federal reserve. If she was still the chair of the federal reserve at the time, it would have been highly inappropriate. As a private citizen, who was the ex-chairman, it's not.

I'm sure the hedge fund never expected she might be appointed again.