He is a complete jerk, and by the way did you know he visited a prostitute? That being said, why is it that he is completely right on the bailout question?
Two responses are possible: One is to accept the need for gigantic financial institutions and the impossibility of failure—and hence the reality of explicit government guarantees, such as Fannie and Freddie now have—but then to regulate the entities so heavily that they essentially become extensions of the government. To do so could risk the nimbleness we want from economic actors.
The better policy is to return to an era of vibrant competition among multiple, smaller entities—none so essential to the entire structure that it is indispensable.
And the conclusion:
It is time we permitted the market to work: This means true competition with winners and losers; companies that disappear; shareholders and CEOs who can lose as well as win; and government investment in the long-range competitiveness of our nation, not in a failed business model of financial concentration and failed risk management that holds nobody accountable.
Why is he totally right on this. He has no power and thus no stake in this fight, so all he has is his opinion. When I first started thrashing against this bailout, my liberal friends remanded me and told me we can’t allow self-correction. Like Spitzer, I don’t support a flawed status quo.