[Goose]

When you are dealing with that much money, and when there is that much discretion, you simply can't have the head of the department with a potential conflict of interest.  Working for a dollar makes it even worse; then someone feels entitled to helping themselves by steering money towards companies in which they have an interest because they are not getting anything directly for their work.

So you believe that inevitably anybody working for a dollar will rationalize decisions that they know are being made just to benefit themselves? Sorry, I don't believe that. I do believe that CAN happen, but to say it will happen is I think outside our experience. I guess "Wild Bill" Donovan is an exception because he drew no pay?

A salary is not just compensation for the work you are doing for the government; it creates an obligation to your employer (the taxpayer).  Taking a dollar in order to be able to maintain your conflicts of interest and not divest is not a deal that is advantageous to the taxpayer.

Always? Seems a bit of a strong statement. I think it depends a lot on the situation. FWIW, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find people who are qualified to work for the Government. It was always a problem, because the jobs don't usually pay as well as private industry. However, it was reasonable for somebody to say "OK, I will take a pay cut to help my nation. I can do that". But today we also tell them "Oh, by the way, you have to relinquish control of all your assets into a blind trust that will be a bitch to unroll and may massively tank while you work for less money". Most good, smart, people simply aren't going to do that. Of course, it is doubly hard if you are asked to work for Donald Trump, but even in "normal" times it is an issue.
This preoccupation with eliminating conflict of interest is a relatively new thing in our history. Did FDR transfer all his assets to a blind trust when he became Assistant Secretary of the Navy? It used to be we assumed people were "honest" until they proved they weren't. Now we insist the must remove any possible conflict of interest or else we can't use their services. While I understand the theory, I think the costs are higher than we realize.

I don't think Slaoui lacks integrity, but that conflict can create an unconscious bias in the decision making that can lead to sub-optimal decisions.  There may come a time where he will have to make a tough call that could cost his portfolio millions of dollars, and he might hesitate to make it, costing the taxpayer billions, or let the conflict affect his judgment even as he is unaware of it.

Here's an old paper about it:


http://journal.sjdm.org/10/91104/jdm91104.pdf

The results suggest that judgments are easily influenced by affiliation with interested partisans, and that this influence extends to judgments made with clear incentives for objectivity. The consistency we observe between public and private judgments indicates that participants believed their biased assessments.

In other words, not only will conflicts of interest affect judgments, but the affected person is not even aware of their bias; they legitimately think they are giving what they think is their best assessment, even as it is sub-optimal.  This isn't impugning Slaoui; it is impugning human nature.

BC

Yes, it is human nature. But note the quote you provided references "affiliation with interested partisans". That doesn't just mean money. That means if you have any frame of reference to the subject matter you will have "unconscious bias " toward many of the factors involved in the decision. I have already pointed out that you may have actually worked for one of the "bidders" 10 years ago. Your bias may be very conscious and you hate their guts, or alternatively you love them. No money involved, so that's OK, right? Alternatively, you lost money in a company run by the guy who is now president of one of the "bidders". Unconsciously, you don't trust him. You also may be exactly right in feeling that way. Or, maybe you intend to sit on somebody's board when you leave the Government. Of course, that never happens, so that won't bias you in any way. Or, maybe you think mRNA vaccines just aren't practical. You don't say so publicly, but that is just how you feel.
Everyone's decisions are a product of their experience. You do the best you can to make an "honest" decision. Trying to eliminate anything that could be "unconscious bias " is IMHO impossible.

PS - Of course Hunter Biden shouldn't have accepted the job in Ukraine; the whole reason he was hired was, in part, to put his father in a conflict and influence Ukrainian government officials fearful of upsetting the United States.  Joe Biden should have recused himself from decision-making, and members of the administration spoke out against the appearance of a conflict of interest.  At least one Obama administration official noted that it interfered with America's goal of fighting corruption in Eastern Europe.  As best I can tell, Biden's decisions and actions vis a vis Ukraine broadly comported to what the international community expected, and I expect that in most cases Slaoui's decisions will be based on fairly straightforward comparative assessments of the various vaccine candidates.  However, that doesn't mean that the conflict couldn't have influenced Biden's decision making if the facts had been a bit more ambiguous, or that Slaoui won't be influenced by his conflict if there is a close call to be made.

True. If Slaoui does something that is really off the wall that favors his investments, I would expect our free press to bring it up. I would also expect the injured firm(s) to file suit. In fact, I expect some firms to file suit "just because" before Warp Speed is over. Somebody somewhere will have done something that they shouldn't.

[Goose]

When you are dealing with that much money, and when there is that much discretion, you simply can't have the head of the department with a potential conflict of interest.  Working for a dollar makes it even worse; then someone feels entitled to helping themselves by steering money towards companies in which they have an interest because they are not getting anything directly for their work.

So you believe that inevitably anybody working for a dollar will rationalize decisions that they know are being made just to benefit themselves? Sorry, I don't believe that. I do believe that CAN happen, but to say it will happen is I think outside our experience. I guess "Wild Bill" Donovan is an exception because he drew no pay?

A salary is not just compensation for the work you are doing for the government; it creates an obligation to your employer (the taxpayer).  Taking a dollar in order to be able to maintain your conflicts of interest and not divest is not a deal that is advantageous to the taxpayer.

Always? Seems a bit of a strong statement. I think it depends a lot on the situation. FWIW, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find people who are qualified to work for the Government. It was always a problem, because the jobs don't usually pay as well as private industry. However, it was reasonable for somebody to say "OK, I will take a pay cut to help my nation. I can do that". But today we also tell them "Oh, by the way, you have to relinquish control of all your assets into a blind trust that will be a bitch to unroll and may massively tank while you work for less money". Most good, smart, people simply aren't going to do that. Of course, it is doubly hard if you are asked to work for Donald Trump, but even in "normal" times it is an issue.
This preoccupation with eliminating conflict of interest is a relatively new thing in our history. Did FDR transfer all his assets to a blind trust when he became Assistant Secretary of the Navy? It used to be we assumed people were "honest" until they proved they weren't. Now we insist the must remove any possible conflict of interest or else we can't use their services. While I understand the theory, I think the costs are higher than we realize.

I don't think Slaoui lacks integrity, but that conflict can create an unconscious bias in the decision making that can lead to sub-optimal decisions.  There may come a time where he will have to make a tough call that could cost his portfolio millions of dollars, and he might hesitate to make it, costing the taxpayer billions, or let the conflict affect his judgment even as he is unaware of it.

Here's an old paper about it:


http://journal.sjdm.org/10/91104/jdm91104.pdf

The results suggest that judgments are easily influenced by affiliation with interested partisans, and that this influence extends to judgments made with clear incentives for objectivity. The consistency we observe between public and private judgments indicates that participants believed their biased assessments.

In other words, not only will conflicts of interest affect judgments, but the affected person is not even aware of their bias; they legitimately think they are giving what they think is their best assessment, even as it is sub-optimal.  This isn't impugning Slaoui; it is impugning human nature.

BC

Yes, it is human nature. But note the quote you provided references "affiliation with interested partisans". That doesn't just mean money. That means if you have any frame of reference to the subject matter you will have "unconscious bias " toward many of the factors involved in the decision. I have already pointed out that you may have actually worked for one of the "bidders" 10 years ago. Your bias may be very conscious and you hate their guts, or alternatively you love them. No money involved, so that's OK, right? Alternatively, you lost money in a company run by the guy who is now president of one of the "bidders". Unconsciously, you don't trust him. You also may be exactly right in feeling that way. Or, maybe you intend to sit on somebody's board when you leave the Government. Of course, that never happens, so that won't bias you in any way. Or, maybe you think mRNA vaccines just aren't practical. You don't say so publicly, but that is just how you feel.
Everyone's decisions are a product of their experience. You do the best you can to make an "honest" decision. Trying to eliminate anything that could be "unconscious bias " is IMHO impossible.

PS - Of course Hunter Biden shouldn't have accepted the job in Ukraine; the whole reason he was hired was, in part, to put his father in a conflict and influence Ukrainian government officials fearful of upsetting the United States.  Joe Biden should have recused himself from decision-making, and members of the administration spoke out against the appearance of a conflict of interest.  At least one Obama administration official noted that it interfered with America's goal of fighting corruption in Eastern Europe.  As best I can tell, Biden's decisions and actions vis a vis Ukraine broadly comported to what the international community expected, and I expect that in most cases Slaoui's decisions will be based on fairly straightforward comparative assessments of the various vaccine candidates.  However, that doesn't mean that the conflict couldn't have influenced Biden's decision making if the facts had been a bit more ambiguous, or that Slaoui won't be influenced by his conflict if there is a close call to be made.

True. If Slaoui does something that is really off the wall that favors his investments, I would expect our free press to bring it up. I would also expect the injured firm(s) to file suit. In fact, I expect some firms to file suit "just because" before Warp Speed is over. Somebody somewhere will have done something that they shouldn't.