[pjc50]

This is like saying a bunch of nodes behind a load balancer are "colluding to keep a failing system alive" when one of them fails over; it's technically correct but .. you don't actually want the system to fail? Because people are using it?

[thewildginger]

But a possibly better and more optimized implementation can't be put in place until the current one fails, that's the core issue here. Many people want reforms to the banking system, bit the system is defended fiercely until it's un-ignorable. This is a defense of god awful ways of doing things so the general public can ignore it.

Banks directly acting to help their competition? Why? Isn't that how competition is supposed to work?

What we're seeing is yet another version of capital and capitalism in decline, and rich financiers are still claiming the empire is wearing a wonderful robe. News flash! he's wearing nothing at all.

[pjc50]

> But a possibly better and more optimized implementation can't be put in place until the current one fails

That's like saying we can't implement renewable energy until the grid goes dark, and the best way to get reform is to go round blowing up some power stations. People are depending on this infrastructure to work! Advocating for bank failures without regard to the consequences to the users is the sort of accelerationism that you normally only hear from revolutionary Communists.

What is the acceptable level of collateral damage from bank failures to you?