The evil ones are the ones who happened to be advising the representatives of the taxpayers claiming—with unfathomable conflict of interest—that multiple major banks failing would be a doomsday scenario to be avoided at all costs.
> The evil ones are the ones who happened to be advising the representatives of the taxpayers
The advisors weren't significantly different from the representatives. Does that make the representatives more or less evil than the advisors? Does it matter?
Given that this is how things are going to be if we have this sort of regulation, are we really benefitting from this sort of regulation?
I think that we should always evaluate based on realized benefits and incurred costs, not desired benefits and promised costs. However, our actual policies show that most people disagree with me.
Regulatory capture is a consequence of regulation. Folks who demand regulation are in little position to complain about regulatory capture.
As to extortion, the "everything is failing" stuff came from regulators who are still in place. By contrast, the admiral and general in charge of Pearl Harbor on Dec 6, 1941 were replaced almost immediately....
The taxpayers made that decision, so it's unclear why you think that the recipients are evil.
I think that the taxpayers made the wrong decision, but ....