I read the article and I am not seeing where you are getting that. The article supports the claim that having government subsidies of the banks risk causes ban

I read the article and I am not seeing where you are getting that. The article supports the claim that having government subsidies of the banks risk causes banks to take greater risks This seems like a common idea. The Economist is arguing that it is important to keep capitalists liable for their investments. The Economist does not want the government to be paying for bad bets of the private sector. They are arguing for higher capital requirements and tougher regulation.