[aneemzic]

Why does comic-con pay famous actors to appear? I assume because it attracts the type of audience they see as their customers.

Hedge fund billionaires, bankers and policy makers on the other hand aren't going to show up to listen to what johnny depp has to say. So you have to pay for someone who will be draw for them. The higher the status of the customers you want, the more you'll find yourself paying.

[nanis]

> Why does comic-con pay famous actors to appear?

In the case of Comic-Con, they do that because their audience who pay for their tickets are more likely to pay if the actors they like are part of the experience.

In this case, we are talking about companies paying people exorbitant sums for no other reason that at some point the speaker may be in a position to affect the flow of government largess.

Even "networking" in this context is geared towards signaling to friend & foe that you now have inside reach to people whose actions or even mere words can move mountains of money in one direction or another.

Totally different.

By the way, this is standard textbook economic analysis and it would not be different if the names and political parties were switched.

[travmatt]

I have a hard time reconciling the fact you claim to be making a dispassionate analysis, and yet cannot find a single accomplishment of Janet Yellen that would merit her being an in-demand speaker, except her ability to ‘direct government largesse’. If you were trying to make a sincere argument, I suspect you’d find a few reasons people would value her ideas.

[nanis]

> being an in-demand speaker, except her ability to ‘direct government largesse’

She was a decent economist. Her work not associated with politics ended as the 20th century was in the rearview mirror. Take a look at her bibliography[1]. The interesting non-proceedings/non-Fed papers end in the 90s.

There are many other economists who are just as good (i.e. capable of talking at length in sleep inducing tone without providing any deep insight but making general statements about topics that sound like they should be interesting). No one pays them a bazigillion bucks to read their policy papers out loud.

What evidence do you have that she gets paid the bucks due to her attributes as a speaker?

[1]: https://econpapers.repec.org/RAS/pye21.htm

[valuearb]

That’s not the only reason to hear her opinions, but among the group that can afford to pay those fees, her ability to direct largess is their most important reason.

[jjeaff]

As someone interested in economics, I would like to hear a speech by Janet Yellen. She is intelligent and interesting and even has a unique voice along with her Brooklyn accent that makes her even more interesting.

I have organized business events and while I haven't ever been involved with hiring someone as high profile as Yellen, I can certainly understand why she could command an $800k speaking fee. I have seen speakers with much less cachet (very little chance you have ever heard of them) draw $50k speaking fees.

Also, this wasn't one speaking fee for Yellen, it was multiple multi-day events over s period of time.

People are paying $250k for a single speech from Malcolm Gladwell or Seth Godin and they are presumably not getting any political benefits for hiring them. So I see nothing odd about Janet Yellen getting $800k total for several speeches.

[aneemzic]

> Totally different.

I don't see how they are different at all. The talker is used to bring in a certain type of person they're looking for. How they convert that persons attendance in to a return for their business is irrelevant. Comic-on doesn't just make money on tickets, bringing those customers in also leads to them making more transactions inside

> In this case, we are talking about companies paying people exorbitant sums for no other reason that at some point the speaker may be in a position to affect the flow of government largess.

That's conjecture and no we aren't. We were specifically discussing “wall street speaking fees” and why they demand such a high rate. Which there are clearly other valid business incentives other than the one you've landed on.

As to whether this specific case had nefarious motives. I don't know enough to have a strong opinion either way.