Given the mountains of conflicting evidence with the recent financial crisis that has cost trillions and the crisis before that this argument seems to be basele

Given the mountains of conflicting evidence with the recent financial crisis that has cost trillions and the crisis before that this argument seems to be baseless. The linked paper itself goes into some detail to explore alternative explanations in good faith before confirming something of the opposite. The idea that a revolving door does not have deep ethical implications with massive conflict of interest can be made in good faith only in an 'idealized' world, in which case everything is moot.