You should look at the severity and frequency of economic cycles around the world throughout history and I bet you'd reconsider this position. Often times they lead to the collapse of entire nations or worse, war.
Is that worth it to teach an overleveraged business a lesson? Remember, "businesses" don't make these decisions in a vacuum; they are run by and consist of people. People win and people lose in every cycle (just not always the same or most deserving groups).
Yes, because they tend to go straight down the tube because when you socialize gains and privatize losses people don't do more than the minimum they can get away with.
IMO, carried interest should be rewarded less than labor.
I mean really, if you're just sitting there drawing interest on great grandpa's labor's capital, why is that better than getting up and going to work everyday?
Bitcoin just misses the point of being a currency all together.
Dividing that cake is harder than you think. The whole point of working together is to get more than people can get individually, so how do you come up with a formula?
There needs to be more and better control to avoid the "dumb banks" issue, but this problem seems to be a hard one. As in: we don't even have the basic science to solve this problem.
The Fed, on the other hand, is a classic central bank and it can print money to finance the federal deficit. I think you're misinterpreting the supposed "independence" of the fed - it remains a government institution that is largely independent operationally (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un...), but it's not a private institution. In other words, it's not independent the way a private bank is; it's independent the way FTC is.