Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 t…
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.
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.