Lots of people annoyed about my Obama column, zero arguments for why any of the below is wrong. Because it's right. http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-wall-street-speaking-fees-2017-4 …pic.twitter.com/sC5kkNKK4O
-
Well, I think book royalties are the best example, since they're ultimately paid by a mass audience of interested readers, not an elite few.
Sort of. But advance could easily be inflated and he won't have to pay it back
-
-
It could be. An uneconomic book deal could look fishy. But Obama is an ex-president with a huge fan base who's written bestsellers before.
-
The standard is not to do nothing that nobody could ever complain about. But I think the case about banks is clear.
-
Banks have major policy interests, bad bank policy can wreck world economy, & proper bank policy in a crisis can involve giving banks money
-
So voters, especially on the left, are naturally suspicious about the relationship between politicians and banks.
-
And substantively, it is especially important that politicians not be dissuaded from making policy that harms banks when necessary.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.