What part of "she was and now is an agent of the state" is not understood?

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?

Because raise huge suspect of bribing.

What could she say at those speaking engagements that could possibly:

* 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?

> for market rates?

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.

Why would Citadel pay anyone any amount to speak there?

Because it's obviously a bribe

What should the going rate be for the former fed chairman?

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.

>What should the going rate be for the former fed chairman?

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.

The Fed Chairman makes $203k per year. That's not a "set for life" level of salary. After their term is up they're gonna need ongoing financial support from some source or another. And being independently wealthy is not an appropriate solution either, then you've ensured that nobody who is not "of certain means" can ever hold that position regardless of competence.

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.

It baffles me that you believe she should make six figures to give a single speech simply because that's the only way for her to avoid being broke in her mid 70s.

There are more options than taking obscene speaking fees and being broke.

Lots of people want to hear what a Fed Chairman has to say and it is impossible to disentangle their future work from that former position.

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.

>Is a position as a lecture of Economics at Harvard

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?

If they were given the job because of their position in the government, why does it matter if the job is as a professor, author, talking head, or executive? It's all "profiting from the position."

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?

(1) She is qualified to be a professor at Harvard even if you exclude her work in public service.

(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

> Harvard is not in a position to directly benefit/profit...

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.

Ok, but that doesn't address the reality of the situation or the question.

Sure it does. Senior figures in the government should be barred from accepting these sort of fees after their service. Those that have accepted these sort of fees should not be appointed to positions of public trust.

We are talking about fee's that already happened.

We can't go back in time and pass ethics laws.