SOME SPITZER COMMENTARY.
Spitzer has resigned. Not exactly a shocker. To say a word on the commentary, though, Ruth Marcus makes a point I keep hearing. "Of all the people who should have been smart enough to avoid this, it is Spitzer," she writes. The prosecutor who was careful enough to avoid wire transfers but too reckless to heed the other, obvious perils. How could he not have realized that he was easily recognizable? How could he not have worried about the inevitable cyber-trail of cellphone records and e-mails? At some level, he must have wanted to be caught."
You get this sort of thing a lot. When a smart, powerful individual does something, it's evidence that he or she had some deep psychological desire to be caught. But no! People are just dumb sometimes. They discount the future, they overestimate their cleverness, they forget that just because something feels private doesn't mean it is private. Spitzer wanted to get laid, and he wanted to get laid in a way that no one would find out about. He was simply wrong on how insulated the trysts were from unexpected government investigations into his cash withdrawal. He's a smart guy whose libido convinced him to do a dumb thing.
Elsewhere, my wise and learned boss says, "I suspect that what makes a prostitute worth $5,500 an hour is that she costs $5,500 an hour. The value here doesn't dictate the price. The price, rather, dictates the value. These women are available only to the wealthy; the ability to hire them, like the ability to live on Fifth Avenue overlooking Central Park, means that you've made it. And even if your hour turns out to be a bit disappointing, that's okay, because $5,500 doesn't really mean anything to you -- which just means you've really made it." In other words, Harold continues, Spitzer was buying a "positional good."
But a positional good only really works if other people know you're buying it. I understand that Spitzer could get some satisfaction from burning the money, but there are lots of things he could have burnt money buying, and he doesn't seem to have been that type. His positional good, rather, was power. He paid so much for a prostitute because the price suggested the professionalism. Anyone being paid that well had enough financial incentive and institutional pressure to keep his secret an actual secret. "Kristen" was already raking in the money. She wouldn't need to sell his pictures to the tabloids. And, indeed, she didn't. It was a government investigation that outed him. The $5,500 worked just as it was supposed to. The problem was, paying that much, in cash, for professionalism left investigators wondering what exactly Spitzer was paying for.
Feeds: 


COMMENTS (20)
I think she did cooperate with the investigation, certainly some of them did as I read it.
You are right that he thought he was getting professional and therefore discrete service. Problem is, given the power and tactics of law enforcement, that's a false belief almost anywhere you look. At some point, your own mother is going to have to give you up. He, of all people, should have known that. He used it to his advantage as a prosecutor every day.
Posted by: dm | March 12, 2008 2:07 PM
Interesting. Cash is supposed to be anonymous. He'd have been better off using Visa - no would have blinked.
Posted by: George | March 12, 2008 2:17 PM
Ezra, I think you and your boss missed the point a little here because while it's fine to ask the question of what makes a transaction with a sex worker worth $5,500 an hour, you're only answering it from the point of view of the buyer.
Look at it, instead, from the point of view of the seller. The, for lack of a better term, unwritten social contract with female prostitutes has always been that it pays so well because they're giving up the future "earnings" and other benefits of being married. A prostitute is most definitely not marriage material during her career, and probably not after either.
Quite simply, it costs $5,500, not because it's worth that to Eliot, but because it's worth that to Kristen. This is especially true at the level of customer Emperor's VIP served.
Posted by: Rick | March 12, 2008 2:31 PM
While rationally positional goods should be something you can flaunt, it's entirely possible that they are an entirely personal ego-driven process that still works fine in private.
Lastly, there simply isn't an efficient market for these goods. Black market services don't really allow for comparison shopping or other important aspects of an efficient economy. Inefficient markets generally lead to high prices.
Posted by: Shock Mouse | March 12, 2008 2:38 PM
"At some level, he must have wanted to be caught."
I think it's more than slightly disturbing on civil liberties and political freedom grounds that the Feds can start wiretapping an elected politician worth millions based on the fact that he's slushing around 15 grand in cash.
What is the conceivable public good served by such criteria that counterbalances the obvious dangers?
If Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or Andy Stern take $2,000 out of an ATM, can the Feds start a wiretap and go on a fishing expedition?
Think about that one for a moment.
I see some weak echoes of Putin-ism here that really disturb me...
Posted by: Petey | March 12, 2008 2:45 PM
Wait, did you just call a living, breathing woman a "positional good." I know people like to dehumanize prostitutes, but seriously.
Posted by: ksteiger | March 12, 2008 2:49 PM
The value here doesn't dictate the price. The price, rather, dictates the value.
The value is such because there is a willing buyer and a willing seller. The willing seller is a no-brainer. It's a great price for the prostitute. The reason why there are willing buyers is because these women look like the Victoria's Secret commercial...young, classy and most importantly, they don't look or act like whores.
Posted by: El Viajero | March 12, 2008 2:58 PM
Wait, did you just call a living, breathing woman a "positional good." I know people like to dehumanize prostitutes, but seriously.
OK, she was a missionary positional good.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | March 12, 2008 3:10 PM
I think he was paying that much aslo because $5500 buys you more than just sex, but also guaranteed discretion.
The prostitutes or their bosses never gave him up. It was all the boring bits that got him caught.
So in that sense alone, their discretion was worth what he was paying.
I know that sounds like I'm condoning all this. I am not at all. Just an observation. I live in NY and am glad he's going away.
Posted by: swarty | March 12, 2008 3:17 PM
... evidence that he or she had some deep psychological desire to be caught. But no! People are just dumb sometimes.
You know, those two propositions are not necessarily contradictory.
Posted by: Will Divide | March 12, 2008 3:31 PM
See this comment from Free Exchange making the point that high-end prostitution is a very skill, time, and capital intensive business, with many expenses.
That's in addition to the opportunity costs involved in pursuing the profession - these are young, beautiful women with at least some college education, so they probably have other prospects.
Posted by: jack lecou | March 12, 2008 4:00 PM
I commented on Matt's site that I thought the Mr. Spitzer's crime pales in comparison to Bush & Co.
Another comparison has presented itself. Southwest airlines with some FAA knowledge flew jets that should not have flown. They put many people's lives needlessly at risk. Who is being prosecuted for this - the CEO should be fired, the FAA head should be fired, the list goes on and on.
These are examples of real crimes.
Posted by: George | March 12, 2008 4:15 PM
there was a great louis malle film that eliot" spitzer should have rented from netflix....
a deeply uneasy masterpiece about the sexual obsession of a political figure.
....jeremy irons and juliette binoche.
the storyline was a bit different, but the outcome leads to a similar sort of vortex.
a good film for clients 01 through 08 to watch.
Posted by: jacqueline | March 12, 2008 4:43 PM
the name of the film was deleted in the above message...
"damage".....made in 1992
Posted by: jacqueline | March 12, 2008 4:45 PM
"Look at it, instead, from the point of view of the seller. The, for lack of a better term, unwritten social contract with female prostitutes has always been that it pays so well because they're giving up the future "earnings" and other benefits of being married. A prostitute is most definitely not marriage material during her career, and probably not after either."
I seriously wish there was an emoticon depicted my head exploding.
1.) The average prostitute does not make anything close to what this “Kristen” is raking in (if they did every woman I am friends with would be standing on a corner including myself
2.) Women are no longer valued on their marital status or ability to get married relatively easy, we actually can go to college, get a job and maybe even be so lucky as to support ourselves, we don't even need to get married
3.) And to say that a woman is not “marriage material” is ignorant and subjective
Posted by: Stef | March 12, 2008 5:02 PM
Rick says: The, for lack of a better term, unwritten social contract with female prostitutes has always been that it pays so well because they're giving up the future "earnings" and other benefits of being married. A prostitute is most definitely not marriage material during her career, and probably not after either.
There are "earnings and other benefits of being married" that women get? Really? And the reason I was able to get married was that I was "marriage material"? All this time I thought it was something mutual because Dear Husband and I were attracted to each other and loved each other and, despite many upheavals over twenty years, are still hanging together because that physical thing is a pretty potent adhesive, both in terms of repairing all those inevitable upheaval-related tears and breaks as well as keeping two people together.
But I've been wrong, I see. I suppose I should start charging a standard monthly Trophy Wife Fee (since I'm wife #2), along with an incubator/surrogate fee (times three), and see what other benefits I might be able to claim.
Because, you know, I don't have any sexual desires of my own or anything. And all those encounters with Dear Husband hold no pleasure--no reward--for me, right?
Rick, if you truly think of marriage, and women, this way, my suggestion to you is best expressed by the words of a recent Cadillac commercial: You should spend some quality time with a different kind of woman.
Posted by: litbrit | March 12, 2008 5:11 PM
On a purely surface level, I think you make a good argument Ezra. But it's only a surface argument. Whether or not we should be psycho-analyzing Spitzer is another story, but I'm uncomfortable with just leaving this as a guy who wanted to get laid. This is a guy who through great determination and sacrifice put himself in the public eye (as almost all politicians do). And to those of us who enjoy the public eye, there's something that we need to be asking ourselves: why? What's with the need for public approval? I think Clinton (and probably Spitzer) are using sex as a way to put into a physical act their very needy desire to be approved. And to feel in control. The wish to "get laid" is of course part of this and I would agree that part of the wish to "get laid" is to "get laid" but there's more to it than that. There's always more to it than that. So I think your reducing this to a guy not wanting to get caught and have a lot of fun...and to do it over six times with a wife and three daughters at home and a slew of enemies that want to tear him down...it's more than just the wish for a good lay. And if a good lay is all it is, then there's more to a wish for a good lay than what you are insinuating here.
Posted by: Bernie Watersmouth | March 12, 2008 5:16 PM
I suspect that what makes a prostitute worth $5,500 an hour is that she costs $5,500 an hour. The value here doesn't dictate the price. The price, rather, dictates the value. These women are available only to the wealthy; the ability to hire them, like the ability to live on Fifth Avenue overlooking Central Park, means that you've made it. And even if your hour turns out to be a bit disappointing, that's okay, because $5,500 doesn't really mean anything to you -- which just means you've really made it.
No one else seems to have made this point explicitly, so let me: many men who can afford a $5,500 hooker would want one who doesn't see many clients. They'd be happy spending less, if they knew that she wasn't seeing more men to make up for it. Some of this is discretion -- the more men she sees, the more likely that there will be a catastrophic blunder getting everyone arrested -- but some of this is that the value of the good (yes, this is dehumanizing language, but go with it for now) drops when more men use it (ugh, again, forgive me). For example, johns would feel a little bit safer as far as STDs go if they know that the call girl sees only a fixed stable of clients.
Posted by: anonymous 37 | March 12, 2008 7:50 PM
I think it's worth lingering on Petey's point. This was a political hit. Spitzer had a lot of enemies in the financial world, and no doubt they were scrutinizing him closely. I'm not sure the same amount of activity would have drawn the interest of investigators - it is not beyond the realm of possibility that his enemies found out about his proclivities and were fishing for evidence. But that is not to let Spitzer off the hook. Not only did he give his enemies the bullets with which to do him in, any hope of survival would have rested on being successful and popular - ala Clinton or Giuliani. His approval ratings were in the 20-30s because of his own Troopergate - which involved using of state power to find dirt in order to destroy a political enemy. But the Republicans showed him how that is done.
Posted by: umbrelladoc | March 12, 2008 8:15 PM
Beyond ignoring his knowledge of cyber trails and financial records, the surety of his enemies resolve, or even the moral clarity of his purpose, Spitzer should have known the perils of a powerful politician soliciting prostitutes. Despite his vaunted education, he clearly did not develop an appreciation for the classics. Compared to Senator Geary, he should consider himself lucky.
TOM
How is he?
MANAGER
He's okay -- he's in the back.
[They walk to the back of the club.]
Come on girls, take a hike.
(then)
In this room here.
TOM
I want to talk to him alone first.
MANAGER
Come on; Huh.
[TOM walk in to a room alone.]
TOM
I thought I could help you SENATOR.
GEARY
Hagen.
[TOM nods.]
Listen, I did not --
TOM
I know, you're alright.
GEARY
I didn't do anything.
TOM
It's okay. You're very lucky -- my brother FREDO operates this place, he was called before anyone. If this had happened someplace else, we couldn't've helped you..
GEARY
I -- when I woke up, I was on the floor -- and I don't know how it happened.
TOM
You can't remember?
GEARY
I passed out.
[He stands up and moves over the bed where we see a bloody dead girl.]
I -- I'll fix it.
[He unties the girl's hand from the bed post.]
Just a game.
[He takes a towel and begins to wipe up the blood that is all over her. He looks at the towel and wipes off his hands.]
Jesus, Jesus.
[He begins to cry. As he does, TOM looks over at NERI who is wiping his hands in the bathroom.]
Jesus, God -- Oh, God. I don't know -- and I can't understand -- why I can't remember.
TOM
You don't have to remember -- just do as I say. We're putting a call into your office -- explain that you'll be there tomorrow afternoon -- you decided to spend the night at Michael Corleone's house in Tahoe -- as his guest.
GEARY
I do remember that she was laughing...we'd done it before -- and I know that I couldn't've hurt -- that girl
TOM
This girl has no family -- nobody knows that she worked here. It'll be as if she never existed. All that's left is our friendship.
Posted by: umbrelladoc | March 12, 2008 8:24 PM