EW: Obama was wrong, the system is more rigged than you thin

[jeaniebueller]

I am not really sure what I think about this TBH.


In the book, I talk about the revolving door and how people work on Wall Street for 20 years, and then take a spin through the revolving door and work in the Treasury Department, and then spin right back to Wall Street. The giant payouts that they give to people to go work in government are just stunning. I mean, millions of dollars.



These big corporations! "If you go teach, we got nothing for you. If you want to go build houses for Habitat for Humanity, we'll give you a firm handshake. If you'll go work in government, we'll write you this giant check to go do that." What is that, except by way of saying, "Remember us, because you're going to be the one driving the bus, and when you're driving the bus, keep in mind all the things we care about."



www.vox.com/2017/4/26/15426274/elizabeth-warren-interview-ezra-klein-obama

[jeaniebueller]

I guess I am not sure that because you work for a Wall street bank, then go to the government and then back to a Wall Street bank, that its any indication of corruption. Wouldn't you expect someone knowledgeable about the financial system to work somewhere like that?

[CheeringCharm]

Money slithers through Washington like a snake, and it's quiet, but the influence is everywhere. There are the obvious ways that we know about, the campaign contributions and armies of lobbyists. But it's so much more. It's bought-and-paid-for experts who testify before Congress and are quoted in the press. It's think tanks that are funded by shadowy money and always have a particular point of view that just seems to help the rich and the powerful get richer and more powerful.

;

Money pervades. It's whose phone calls do you take. It's who you see in the evenings. It's who are your old friends. It's every part of it, so that the rich and the powerful are incredibly well-represented, not just at the top in the White House but all the way through government in this town.


These are really good points and I have no trouble believing this at all. It's really depressing though because I don't see how it will ever change because Congress would have to vote to implement tougher regulations (such as, maybe former Congress members shouldn't become lobbyists - obviously it often creates a conflict of interest) and you know they won't do that. Plus it's human nature to be sympathetic to people you know personally and have a long history with. Sigh.

[laurack]

Apr 27, 2017 8:43:26 GMT -5 jeaniebueller said:

I guess I am not sure that because you work for a Wall street bank, then go to the government and then back to a Wall Street bank, that its any indication of corruption. Wouldn't you expect someone knowledgeable about the financial system to work somewhere like that?

how can it be ok to make a ton of $$ in finance, take your knowledge of working and making a shitton of money in finance to government where you may have the chance to directly influence financial regulation and de-regulation, then hop back again??

[CheeringCharm]

Apr 27, 2017 8:51:28 GMT -5 laurack said:

Apr 27, 2017 8:43:26 GMT -5 jeaniebueller said:

I guess I am not sure that because you work for a Wall street bank, then go to the government and then back to a Wall Street bank, that its any indication of corruption. Wouldn't you expect someone knowledgeable about the financial system to work somewhere like that?

how can it be ok to make a ton of $$ in finance, take your knowledge of working and making a shitton of money in finance to government where you may have the chance to directly influence financial regulation and de-regulation, then hop back again??

Just like how they become highly paid lobbyists after leaving Congress. They see that as their big payday, since obviously government positions don't pay well on their own. It doesn't necessarily have to, but I think this practice often does lead to a conflict of interest.

[Deleted]

Apr 27, 2017 8:43:26 GMT -5 jeaniebueller said:

I guess I am not sure that because you work for a Wall street bank, then go to the government and then back to a Wall Street bank, that its any indication of corruption. Wouldn't you expect someone knowledgeable about the financial system to work somewhere like that?

I don't think it's inherently corrupt, but the financial systems don't exist in a vacuum. Government policies definitely shape them. I think she has a good point about how these companies don't pay big bonuses if you leave to go to academia - it's only if you're taking your expertise to a place that will help shape policy in a way favorable to the company. I'd also like to see government hiring more out of academia rather than business so that we have people making policy who have researched the broader impacts of those policies.

I'm not sure I agree with her 100 percent, but I am not overly knowledgeable about finance.

I did think the interview was great. And as I said in the long Bernie-hating thread, the whole thing makes me that much madder about Bernie's popularity. EW is SO MUCH smarter than him. She can articulate this stuff with more specificity and in a way that makes it applicable to a much broader group of people. And she's so much more personable than Bernie. Listening to her talk really is a delight. She's fierce and passionate without bein cranky. If one populist was going to run in 2016, it should have been her - EW vs. HRC debates would've been great to watch.

[jeaniebueller]

Apr 27, 2017 8:51:28 GMT -5 laurack said:

Apr 27, 2017 8:43:26 GMT -5 jeaniebueller said:

I guess I am not sure that because you work for a Wall street bank, then go to the government and then back to a Wall Street bank, that its any indication of corruption. Wouldn't you expect someone knowledgeable about the financial system to work somewhere like that?

how can it be ok to make a ton of $$ in finance, take your knowledge of working and making a shitton of money in finance to government where you may have the chance to directly influence financial regulation and de-regulation, then hop back again??

I think that to imply that is always corrupt, you would have to show that the person intended on going back to working at a Wall Street bank and had knowledge of that while they worked in government. Obviously that is corrupt. But to finish out your term in the treasury dept than to go back and work in the industry where you have knowledge. IDK. And to take that example outside--don't people do that all the time? Should people who take government jobs and effect policy always have to work in public service or for a not for profit? 

[jeaniebueller]

Apr 27, 2017 8:57:00 GMT -5 @kirkette said:

Apr 27, 2017 8:51:28 GMT -5 laurack said:

how can it be ok to make a ton of $$ in finance, take your knowledge of working and making a shitton of money in finance to government where you may have the chance to directly influence financial regulation and de-regulation, then hop back again??

And you get a huge payday going back to industry, because now you know which regulations are coming down the pipeline, and you have a keen understanding of where to find the loopholes to avoid having to abide by said regulation.

This is a good point and I hadn't necessarily thought about it that way. 

[spunbutterfly]

Apr 27, 2017 9:23:10 GMT -5 jeaniebueller said:

Apr 27, 2017 8:51:28 GMT -5 laurack said:

how can it be ok to make a ton of $$ in finance, take your knowledge of working and making a shitton of money in finance to government where you may have the chance to directly influence financial regulation and de-regulation, then hop back again??

I think that to imply that is always corrupt, you would have to show that the person intended on going back to working at a Wall Street bank and had knowledge of that while they worked in government. Obviously that is corrupt. But to finish out your term in the treasury dept than to go back and work in the industry where you have knowledge. IDK. And to take that example outside--don't people do that all the time? Should people who take government jobs and effect policy always have to work in public service or for a not for profit? 

In tech, generally, there are a lot of non-disclosure and anti-compete clauses and other contract obligations in place to prevent people from jumping into a role that could use knowledge from their prior role (for instance, vice president of search at Microsoft versus vice president of search at Google) to gain leverage. I'm not sure how constitutional those contracts area in the first place, but the fact you can go from your role in one company to a role in another "company" (or in this case government) and then return and use all that knowledge you gained in the public sector for private sector gains is mind blowing to me, given how easily this can and is abused.

I mean, shit like insider trading is considered a crime, no? How is any of this any different, except on a much much bigger level because it's knowledge of policies that will be coming down the pipeline?