I've posted this comment elsewhere in the thread but it seems to apply to your point too. It seems like you're blaming the banks solely for the financial crisis... What a about the Mortgage Interest Deduction distorting incentives to borrow for homes and shifting marginal renters to buyers? (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21651213-subsidies-make-borrowing-irresistible-need-be-phased-out-great-distortion) What about the run on the commercial paper market, which arguably initiated the actual meltdown? (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2009/200936/200936pap.pdf) What about Fannie and Ginnie, who perverted incentives of banks to ensure loan quality, and who were generating 20% returns to equity (sometimes through fraud) on mortgage backed securities (thus partially launching the bubble that collapsed in late 2007?) (http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21600730-americas-huge-mortgage-market-distortions-seem-likely-endure-ugly-twins) (http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21600730-americas-huge-mortgage-market-distortions-seem-likely-endure-ugly-twins) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/18/AR2008081802111.html) I agree the banks were part of the problem, but the financial crash was the result of a complex environment and set of incentives set up largely outside the control of banks. They then, of course, set up financial instruments they weren't able to accurately assess the risk of. That's on them to be sure. But to assert the damage of the financial crisis is their t seems like you're blaming the banks solely for the financial crisis... What a about the Mortgage Interest Deduction distorting incentives to borrow for homes and shifting marginal renters to buyers? (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21651213-subsidies-make-borrowing-irresistible-need-be-phased-out-great-distortion) What about the run on the commercial paper market, which arguably initiated the actual meltdown? (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2009/200936/200936pap.pdf) What about Fannie and Ginnie, who perverted incentives of banks to ensure loan quality, and who were generating 20% returns to equity (sometimes through fraud) on mortgage backed securities (thus partially launching the bubble that collapsed in late 2007?) (http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21600730-americas-huge-mortgage-market-distortions-seem-likely-endure-ugly-twins) (http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21600730-americas-huge-mortgage-market-distortions-seem-likely-endure-ugly-twins) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/18/AR2008081802111.html) I agree the banks were part of the problem, but the financial crash was the result of a complex environment and set of incentives set up largely outside the control of banks. They then, of course, set up financial instruments they weren't able to accurately assess the risk of. That's on them to be sure. But to assert the damage of the financial crisis is their responsibility solely is disingenuous. Also, I'm not sure what damage you're talking about, the benefits of the bailouts exceeded the costs (http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_0qeKwxLWkDyiwjX) solely is disingenuous.