> When markets go astray the answer is not to make the taxpayer step in once more, but to introduce better regulation."

And this better regulation is going to come from the folks who wrote Dodd-Frank, who think that the CRA is a good idea, who keep defending Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.....

No, no, we are going to get it from the Germans.

With this caveat that financial markets fund a lot of the real economy as well. So you really don't want banks going bust left and right, as morally righteuous as that would be.

Why not? All that would happen would be that some other previously small bank would get more business.

Remember, nobody is too big or has been around too long to be allowed to fail. Assyria fell, so can Goldman Sax.

When banks start failing left and right, people start getting scared, taking their money out of banks, causing banks to become insolvent, causing more banks to fail, etc. When a bank fails, you lose money (absent depositor's insurance), potentially lots of it. This is not a good thing. It caused a lot of pain in 1929/1930s in the U.S., and led to the creation of the FDIC. Even 80 years later, we sort of have a cultural memory of bank failures as being a large part of causing the Great Depression in the U.S.

Well, yes they do. Unless the bamks are fdic insured, which I believe all banks are.

But bank failures cause a run on other banks. If the entire system collapses the FDIC will be unable to make good on its obligations.

The FDIC is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States and just like no politician will vote to reinstitute the draft, no politician will do anything but prioritize those payments very, very high.

There isn't enough money. It isn't like they could just issue a few bonds and cover the shortfall.