Is Eliot Spitzer The Savior Of Capitalism?

from the good-question dept

I've seen all different opinions expressed about NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. They range from good to bad, calling him the fighter for the "common man" to a political opportunist, and even much worse (to the point I wouldn't repeat them here). Now, Andrew Orlowski, from the Register, weighs in, saying that Spitzer is a populist hero for taking on investment banks (and some of his other crusades). Orlowski argues that Spitzer is showing the capitalist world that it isn't ruled by "the invisible hand", but by the people who come in and make the rules. I agree, in principal, with a lot of what Orlowski has to say, and I think that Spitzer certainly has done some good, (no matter what his reasoning, and even if some disagree that this is a good deed by Spitzer). However, I think Orlowski is missing the point about how economics works. Too many people who don't understand economics seem to think that people who spout economic theories are talking about the way things should act, when in reality, they're talking about the way things actually do respond to various factors. Spitzer's actions seem to do more to support more truely "invisible hand" economics by trying to make the system more open. Whether or not that will work is an entirely different question.