Because it will save a lot of money for them in the long and we'll have fewer disasters that risk the world economy.

Human intelligence is distributed and responsibility should be as well. Concentrate the power and people take advantage and then weasel out of responsibility, leaving others to suffer the consequences.

The well connected get their risks socialized, because they are "too big to fail". The same story is repeated over and over again.

People who take the risks should get both the losses and the benefits. It's called "skin in the game".

it should be noted that ultimately bailing out the financial system comes at the expense of everyday consumers, though in a much more insiduous fashion than one they could see directly. if you believe that no amount of regulation can stop financial chicanery as long as they have those insurance guarantees, then it makes sense.

i'm not sure about this plan, i'll just say i prefer credit unions myself.

SO would I. But I bet there are people who wouldn't if they stood to gain something valuable that is unavailable if their seatbelt is fastened.

In other words, people do indeed take greater risk with their money if the interest rate is higher. And expect to earn less if the investment is very safe.

And what I'm suggesting is a very specific form of a bank. Strict regulation is implied.

I just prefer to give people of choice of what kind of institution they want to trust. And bail out none of them, a regulation of what government is allowed to do.