[mtlmtlmtlmtl]

That doesn't make them stable. The 2008 financial crisis was literally caused by big US banks. They then had to be bailed out.

This is not a symptom of a stable banking system. It's a symptom of the banks having a disturbing amount of power over the government, which is not a good thing. They were able to conduct what is essentially fraud at a massive scale with impunity because they knew the gov would bail them out when shit hit the fan.

I really don't understand what's so "stable" about this.

[fladrif]

Well whether or not you think banking / government cooperation is a good thing, the fact of the matter is that even when large catastrophes occur, the system is brought back up on its feet.

You can't say the same for crypto systems, luna / terra being a very recent example.

[mtlmtlmtlmtl]

Hey, nice straw man. Of course I think banks should cooperate with the government. I just don't think banks should be more powerful than the gov, which in the US, arguably they are in certain contexts.

And I never said crypto anything was stable on any level. I genuinely believe crypto has 0 usefulness for anything other than very specialised cases, usually to do with avoiding regulation.

The point I was making was that the banking system literally caused the large catastrophe. The fact that people seem to twist this into suggesting it's stable is just absurd.

Just like if your entire SAAS product horribly crashed, deleted and/or leaked a bunch of important customer data and so on, the fact that you were able to fix it doesn't magically mean the system was stable before.

[iudqnolq]

What you're missing is the bailout is part of the system, and counts towards its stability.

In your analogy imagine your SAAS product horribly crashed and deleted customer data. So your cloud provider restored from the backups you had arranged and you were running normally soon after. Not ideal, but you had a far more stable system than someone without backups.

[mtlmtlmtlmtl]

No, this is not how reality works.

Asserting that bailouts are simply "part of the system" is just a cop out.

It doesn't respond to points about the behaviour of the bank which was key to my argument. Maybe read and try again.

I will repeat again at the risk of sounding like a broken record. There is no sane, logical way of arguing that the behaviour that led to the 2008 financial crisis is that of a stable, well-regulated banking system. If you believe otherwise, you are either on drugs, or have done no research, or both.

[Karunamon]

That only matters if you think that capability to be "bailed out" is legitimate in the first place. There is a pretty good argument to be made that allowing institutions to be "too big to fail" is directly enabling a lot of bad behavior, behavior that wouldn't happen if there was an understanding your bank can fail and you will not be compensated as a shareholder, only as a depositor under FDIC