[zpeti]

This is still a better situation than 2008, where banks were bailed out to the extent that management even stayed (despite deserving prison), and shareholders lost nothing.

So that's the worst possible outcome, today's is probably second worst. But I don't see what would be better. Ben talks about loss of trust now, but we'd actually lose more trust if depositors weren't bailed out, and probably contagion would spread and many banks would fail.

Thinking about an endgame, I think extending this all out into the future, its hard to see banking remaining in any way a free market. Either it becomes state sanctioned and protected profit making, which it already is for the big 4 banks, or banking just becomes fully nationalised, and basically a state run commodity.

You can't get out of it being more and more centralised. I just don't see another way. And when it becomes fully centralised, the question is, does Jamie Dimon actually do anything, or is he basically a state actor with a billion dollar salary?

[riffraff]

> probably contagion would spread and many banks would fail

I see this mentioned a lot, but I have still not seen a valid explanation of why this would be the case.

Do we think a lot of companies in random industries will run and pull out their cash from banks to put it... where?

[EMM_386]

Everything would get moved to the handful of "too big to fail" banks.

[themitigating]

"Deserve prison"? Did they commit a crime?

[worksonmine]

In 2008? I think it was fraud yes. What would you call packaging mortgages you know are worthless in pretty wrapping to be able to sell them to the next bagholder?

That it temporarily works and it's how everyone does business isn't an excuse.

[themitigating]

Prove they knew they were bad

[parthianshotgun]

What do you think?

[vxNsr]

yes, they 100000% did. They defrauded their clients, the government and each other. They committed multiple levels of fraud and all got away with it.