The current crisis was caused by too much borrowing by both consumers and banks, he says, and the finance sector needed the taxpayer to bail them out.
In turn, this will lead to a kindler, gentler capitalism with governments playing a greater role in the economy.
An interesting argument, nonetheless, and one more convincing than the simpler bankers' greed getting the blame, which seems the narrative I have seen from TV1 and swallowed by our political leaders, John Key seemingly included.
But if we look back, wasn't government largely to blame for the mess in the first place?
Indeed, some months back, there was a good argument for political correctness getting the blame. Government in the US forced the banks to lower lending standards to people who really could not afford to take on loans. A regular theme of my US election commentary was the role of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, the Community Reinvestment ACT and organisations like ACORN in promoting reckless lending leading to the sub-prime crisis, which then spread globally.
Indeed, if there is a failing in the 'old capitalism', the freemarket Blair/Thatcherite variety, perhaps it is its vulnerability to government induced failures like the above. Thus bailout by government and taxpayer is only the necessary recompense for failed ideology and regulation on the part of government.
But while often seen as saviour, how many problems is government storing up for the future? The bailouts debts will have to be repaid somehow someday. There is the issue of moral hazard too.
If government is to bail you out, you can them make the wrong and riskier choices whether you are a banker or indeed a car manufacturer. How much of those bad loands that caused the credit crunch made simply because government through Fannie and Freddie guaranteed them?
Alas, it's a debate the left seem to be taking a lead so far in. Let us hope the freemarket right can launch a successful fightback! But it is a debate we all need to have.