I don't disagree with the factual correctness of this statement, but the implication is unsettling. Any kind of legal action from the government - from throwing someone in jail for possession of marijuana to suing banks over financial crimes - has negative economic consequences. If we send someone to jail for drug possession, we spend a lot of money investigating and prosecuting them, we pay to keep them locked up, we happily give up their productivity and any taxes they would have paid, and we reduce their long-term value to society by hanging a public arrest record on them. So, where do we stop using economic consequences as a reason for not enforcing laws?

I'm somewhat highly-compensated and I contribute a lot back to the economy, though consumption and taxes. Should the government prosecute me and someone who only earns minimum wage differently, since prosecuting me and throwing me in jail will have a substantially higher negative impact on the economy? Maybe I get 2 or 3 free misdemeanors per year, your average millionaire gets a free felony, and if you are on Fortune's top 100 list you get 3 free felonies?

I'm seeing more and more justification of not going after big companies and powerful executives due to the economic impact, and I think that is getting awfully close to codifying different legal systems for rich people and poor people. Certainly it already exists to a degree, but at least we sort of pretend that it is distasteful now.

If not, that's surely something we can and should change.

But it's not at all clear --- in fact, it seems unlikely --- that the core problem we face is a refusal by regulators to sue.

It seems more likely that the core problem is that the economic incentives in the finance industry, or at least in commercial banking, favor rapid and aggressive consolidation. Not enough disincentive exists to offset the externalities this creates. Maybe we should tax banks based on their sizes; maybe we should do that in the form of some kind of insurance premium.

But since anything we'd do to address any of the real problems is going to require bipartisan cooperation, first we need to be candid about what the problems are.

Completely different meaning. If ate a bar of chocolate in the library despite posted signs against eating and drinking. I broke a rule. If I threw my chocolate bar at the librarian's face with an intent to injure him, I broke a law (assault and injury etc.)

Or so the hypothesis goes. I'd argue that avoiding a hypothesized short-term economic problem in this way simply creates the much larger problem.

You can't just count the cost of one suit against one settlement and call it economically rational.